Apocalypto

[David Mullen ASC]

David , why did Warners need convincing on your choice of Fuji ? . John Holland ,London.

 

Because studios are inherently conservative, technically. Most productions are shot on Kodak, so they want to know why you aren't doing what everyone else is doing. Even Tony Scott was not allowed to shoot major sequences of "Man on Fire" in Super-16 like he wanted to, although a few years later he might have gotten permission. Someone else always has to take the risk before you, so you can point out "hey, so-and-so shot their multi-million dollar movie on Fuji so why can't I?"

 

I had the same problems shooting some of my smaller HD features framed for 2.35 -- I had to write a list of other indie movies shot in 2.35 to prove to the investors that it was not uncommon. On one movie, I couldn't convince them and had to shoot 1.85 (and then the movie never got made shortly after that decision.)

[steve hyde]

No, you don't really know how the system works if you think that.

 

Fair enough. I work outside of the mainstream film industry.

 

Then my questions is this: Where are the pressures to shoot HD coming from? Why does a DP risk shooting new technology when they could be shooting any format they want to shoot?

 

Steve

[Francesco Bonomo]

Here's the truth of it -- the closer digital gets to looking like 35mm film, the more it will then start to NOT bother looking like 35mm. There will never be some meeting point where the look is exact, because (1) you'd have to start adding artifacts like random grain, which no digital camera maker is going to bother with, and (2) most filmmakers will take advantage of some aspect of digital cinematography that film can't do, the 360 degree shutter being the most common trick.

 

David, that's pretty much my point. I've only used film so far (and there are no Genesis here in Italy yet though I know the rental price will be around 10.000?/w), but I wouldn't turn a test with the Genesis down just because "it's digital" (as I've heard many people say).

 

My post didn't imply that digital cameras should deliver exactly the same image that would be captured on a piece of motion picture film, mostly because I think there's no point in trying to exactly match an existing (and proven) technology with a new one. At least for me, the keyt word is "Different".

 

The real test for digital cameras, years from now, will be to allow us to do something we can't do with film cameras.

I guess I'm just bored by the whole "film vs. digital" debate when it's addressed as "HD is not there yet".

 

I hope my english doesn't sound too funny and my point is clear enough... :D

[John Holland]

Because studios are inherently conservative, technically. Most productions are shot on Kodak, so they want to know why you aren't doing what everyone else is doing. Even Tony Scott was not allowed to shoot major sequences of "Man on Fire" in Super-16 like he wanted to, although a few years later he might have gotten permission. Someone else always has to take the risk before you, so you can point out "hey, so-and-so shot their multi-million dollar movie on Fuji so why can't I?"

 

I had the same problems shooting some of my smaller HD features framed for 2.35 -- I had to write a list of other indie movies shot in 2.35 to prove to the investors that it was not uncommon. On one movie, I couldn't convince them and had to shoot 1.85 (and then the movie never got made shortly after that decision.)

i did think that thinking was long gone , Do remember Hiro Narita A.S.C wasnt allowed by Paramount to use Agfa 320 on "The Rocketeer" but was a long time ago , glad to say dont seem to have such a problem over here . John Holland London.

[David Mullen ASC]

That's a good question, since as I said, the system is inherently conservative technically, which is another reason why film will be around for another decade at least.

 

Lots of reasons:

(1) Some DP's & directors prefer the look of digital images for a particular project;

(2) Some directors prefer the workflow of digital shooting/post and the DP just has to make it work for them;

(3) A few small indie films are actually financed by companies that mandate digital origination for some reason, maybe because that's how they raised the money on Wall St. I've run into that situation before.

(4) Some DP's or directors think that digital is "the future" and want to be seen as working at the forefront of a trend, to be seen as innovators... not be catchers-up or followers.

(5) Some people like to play with anything new, where it is a new lens, film stock, post process, etc.

 

I think most DP's know that they do their best work on 35mm (or 65mm if they were allowed to) but can do nice work in HD if asked to. If they aren't worried about their next job, they might do the occasional HD movie to keep up with the technology more than because they think it will get them an Oscar nomination for Best Cinematography. Or because they have a relationship with a director who now wants to shoot digitally.

 

Or a famous director wants to shoot digitally and the DP goes along for the sake of working with that director. If Ridley Scott called me and asked me to shoot a movie in Mini-DV, I jump at the opportunity no matter what I thought of Mini-DV!

 

On a side note, I find it encouraging nowadays when most reviewers review the movie and not the format; few reviews mention that "Home of the Brave" was shot on HD, for example, which clearly means that the format is becoming less of an issue and the movie can be judged on its overall merits.

[Paul Bruening]

As long as they keep it away from that pesky Kahn. "It is very cold in space," my foot!

[steve hyde]

That's a good question, since as I said, the system is inherently conservative technically, which is another reason why film will be around for another decade at least.

 

Lots of reasons:

(1) Some DP's & directors prefer the look of digital images for a particular project;

(2) Some directors prefer the workflow of digital shooting/post and the DP just has to make it work for them;

(3) A few small indie films are actually financed by companies that mandate digital origination for some reason, maybe because that's how they raised the money on Wall St. I've run into that situation before.

(4) Some DP's or directors think that digital is "the future" and want to be seen as working at the forefront of a trend, to be seen as innovators... not be catchers-up or followers.

(5) Some people like to play with anything new, where it is a new lens, film stock, post process, etc.

 

Based on your # 3 response, I am under the impression my assumption about how "the system works" is not as misinformed as you have suggested. If "small indies" have digital mandates, why wouldn't high concept features also have a digital mandate?....maybe it is, in part, because of "Wall Street" pressures.

I would like to know who the top ten investors in HD technology are. That would be interesting to map. It seems highly likely to me that at least one of the top ten investors in HD technology might also have a *producer* credit on Apocolypto. I would like to learn about that.

 

 

I think most DP's know that they do their best work on 35mm (or 65mm if they were allowed to) but can do nice work in HD if asked to. If they aren't worried about their next job, they might do the occasional HD movie to keep up with the technology more than because they think it will get them an Oscar nomination for Best Cinematography. Or because they have a relationship with a director who now wants to shoot digitally.

 

Again, I think it is interesting to think about the digital mandate: "can do nice work on HD if asked to." Clearly the producers place materials constraints on the Director of Photography of most productions, right? Even from outside the industry where I work, I think that is a safe assumption to make. Who in the ASC gets carte blanche to do what ever they want?

 

Or a famous director wants to shoot digitally and the DP goes along for the sake of working with that director. If Ridley Scott called me and asked me to shoot a movie in Mini-DV, I jump at the opportunity no matter what I thought of Mini-DV!

 

So what if Mel Gibson approaches a DP and says, I want to shoot the Genesis because 1) it is a great camera and 2) by the way I own a lot of Panavision stock.

 

 

On a side note, I find it encouraging nowadays when most reviewers review the movie and not the format; few reviews mention that "Home of the Brave" was shot on HD, for example, which clearly means that the format is becoming less of an issue and the movie can be judged on its overall merits.

 

 

It will be very interesting indeed to hear what the critics say about Apocolypto.

 

 

Thanks for your replies,

 

Steve

[Felipe Perez-Burchard]

The dailies looked horrible. They spent A LOT of time and money in post to get it theater worthy.

 

HD isn't there yet. People think they are saving time/money but that upfront savings is blasted away by all the post tinkering you have to do....

 

Again, HD isn't there yet.

 

But "Joe Six Pack" will be "visually educated" into thinking it looks great and won't "notice" a difference.

 

F.R.

 

This is just not true... Dean Semler was able to see the image on set VERY close to what it looked like on the big screen; that was the whole point.

He has mentioned he didn't have to go to dalies (but he did of course).

The film went through a DI and there the look was fine-tuned since it is a controlled environment, but no more than a DI for a film originated project.

 

I agree with David's assesment that the technology will open up doors for new experimentation and it will never just stay or become a perfect emulation.

 

And yes, the 16mm running footage was shot with a tiny ACAM that the actors or operator just ran with; 100 foot spool is all you get !

 

Hope this is useful.

 

best,

[David Mullen ASC]

Mel Gibson basically just wrote a check for "Apocalypto" out of the profits from "The Passion" -- he could have shot the movie in IMAX if he wanted to. I've never heard of a big-budget movie where the investors insisted on digital origination, unless you consider someone like George Lucas to be an investor in his own movies.

 

Certainly Sony Studios has never put pressure on any major Sony release to use Sony digital camera technology.

 

What I was referring to are these smaller start-up companies that raise 6-mil or so to make three or more low-budget features with some sort of business plan describing digital origination and workflow -- doesn't mean that investors in such a plan really understand what they are paying for.

 

Anyway, there's no reason to drag conspiracy theories into why the occasional Hollywood studio film is shot digitally. It happens more rarely than most people would think considering all the digital hype, so a better question would be why doesn't it happen more often, not "oh, I bet they (Panavison, Sony, etc.) paid off so-and-so to shoot that movie digitally." That's sort of thinking that only says more about the person making such accusations - for some reason, they can't believe someone would actually want to shoot a movie digitally.

 

I'm not saying that all decisions on a film shoot are creatively determined, far from it, but there is not some sort of particular corporate skullduggery going to force major productions to shoot digitally. I mean, how many can you name? Even Panavison was caught off guard when Bryan Singer insisted on using the Genesis for "Superman Returns" and had to scramble to supply them with seven working models.

 

Oh, just as I finished typing this... the UPS guy delivered a chocolate cake from the folks at FujiFilm, so I guess I was wrong -- there IS corporate skullduggery going on to influence DP's! Yum. Maybe the Panavision folks sent Mel Gibson a batch of fresh cookies...

[Max Jacoby]

I had to convince Warner Bros. to let me shoot "Astronaut Farmer" on 35mm Fuji, and that was a 10-mil feature! Semler had already used the Genesis on "Click" and liked the results.

The studio didn't want to let Eduardo Serra use Fuji for 'Unbreakable' either as far as I recall. The ignorance of some decision-makers can be quite astonishing at times, can't it?

[steve hyde]

Mel Gibson basically just wrote a check for "Apocalypto" out of the profits from "The Passion" -- he could have shot the movie in IMAX if he wanted to. I've never heard of a big-budget movie where the investors insisted on digital origination, unless you consider someone like George Lucas to be an investor in his own movies.

 

Certainly Sony Studios has never put pressure on any major Sony release to use Sony digital camera technology.

 

What I was referring to are these smaller start-up companies that raise 6-mil or so to make three or more low-budget features with some sort of business plan describing digital origination and workflow -- doesn't mean that investors in such a plan really understand what they are paying for.

 

Anyway, there's no reason to drag conspiracy theories into why the occasional Hollywood studio film is shot digitally. It happens more rarely than most people would think considering all the digital hype, so a better question would be why doesn't it happen more often, not "oh, I bet they (Panavison, Sony, etc.) paid off so-and-so to shoot that movie digitally." That's sort of thinking that only says more about the person making such accusations - for some reason, they can't believe someone would actually want to shoot a movie digitally.

 

I'm not saying that all decisions on a film shoot are creatively determined, far from it, but there is not some sort of particular corporate skullduggery going to force major productions to shoot digitally. I mean, how many can you name? Even Panavison was caught off guard when Bryan Singer insisted on using the Genesis for "Superman Returns" and had to scramble to supply them with seven working models.

 

Oh, just as I finished typing this... the UPS guy delivered a chocolate cake from the folks at FujiFilm, so I guess I was wrong -- there IS corporate skullduggery going on to influence DP's! Yum. Maybe the Panavision folks sent Mel Gibson a batch of fresh cookies...

 

 

Nice of Fuji to send you some cake ;-)

 

I'm not suggesting that Sony is plotting a digital revolution to overthrow film (although I'm sure the CEO of Sony would like to). I'm also not making accusations. However, to suggest that technological decision making is free of political wire pulling seems naive to me. You have said that you are certain that Sony has never put any pressure on major studios to use their digital technology.

 

How can you be certain of that?

 

I'm not trying to posit a conspiracy theory. Are you suggesting that power is not exercised in the film industry?

 

Steve

Edited December 19, 2006 by steve hyde

[freddie bonfanti]

I have watched the film tonight, and what REALLY bugged me was the INCONSISTANCE of the look of the film, which was at times very videoish and at other times quite close to film.

i thought that was very distracting and annoying. sometimes the cut would be from a super grainy scene to a clear one, from a flickery to a non flickering. it happened on MIAMI VICE, too, and i loved it because it suited the style of the film but here, didnt work well.

this incongruence was a problem...i hope in the future people will stick with one style on genesis production, and as Mullen said, try not too make it look so much like film in terms of artifatcs (gain) but make it look like good HD.

[David Mullen ASC]

You have said that you are certain that Sony has never put any pressure on major studios to use their digital technology.

 

How can you be certain of that?

 

I'm not trying to posit a conspiracy theory.

 

Sounds exactly like what you are doing. "Never, ever?" No, I can't prove anything, but it's highly unlikely. It's the difference between what's probable versus what's possible. The Moon landing was possibly faked by NASA, but it probably wasn't. I'm talking about probability but you want to talk about possibility.

 

The Sony broadcast camera people and the Sony Studio people are not really much involved in each other's work. They don't "coordinate" their projects, otherwise "Spider-Man 3" would be using the new F23 or something, since it is their highest profile movie coming out. They did use their new 4K projector to show "Da Vinci Code" in a few theaters, but that was shot on film and the graininess of the image was all the more apparent with the 4K projection, not exactly "showing off" the projector.

 

Being on the ASC Tech Committee, I know some of the Sony people behind the cameras and projectors, and I can tell you that they don't exactly have the head of the studio on their speed dial, no offense to them. The corporation is smart enough to not try and force Ron Howard or Sam Raimi to use a digital camera if they don't want to. In fact, Ron Howard tested the Genesis against Super-35 for "Da Vinci Code" and chose to shoot the movie on film anyway. So much for the power of Sony or Panavision to strong arm anyone to using a particular piece of technology -- the movie didn't even use Panavision film cameras in the end, but Arricams. Really, there isn't the collusion you seem to be implying.

 

I did a small HD movie years ago for Sony Pictures Classics and it didn't help me get a deal on the Sony HD camera, nor would the Sony Hi-Def Center (which still existed back then) give us the time of day for the film-out. As far as they are concerned, they are all separate entities.

 

It comes back to this notion you seem to want to entertain that no right-thinking person could possibly want to shoot a movie digitally, so there MUST be some ulterior motive, some forces at work to force them. Why can't you believe that Mel Gibson or Bryan Singer or Dean Semler just wanted to shoot digitally? Is it so far outside the realm of possibility?

 

Who said once that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one?

 

Here is a list from the IMDB of Sony Entertainment's 2006 releases:

The Pursuit of Happyness

The Holiday

Wicked Little Things

Casino Royale

Running with Scissors

The Grudge 2

The Last Time

Open Season

Gridiron Gang

All the King's Men

Stranger Than Fiction

Paprika

The Wicker Man

Zoom

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

Click

Monster House

Marie Antoinette

The Marsh

The Da Vinci Code

Second in Command

RV

The Benchwarmers

Basic Instinct 2

Ultraviolet

The Deal

 

Probably "The DaVinci Code" was their highest profile project of the year, along with "Casino Royale" (although I thought that was MGM). Anyway, ignoring a CGI movie like "Monster House", how many films listed were shot with Sony digital cameras? "Click" was shot with the Genesis, so that sort of counts, and "Ultraviolet" was an HD shoot I believe. Maybe one of the titles I don't recognize could have been digital. But that's it -- hardly proof some sort of collusion to force Sony productions to use Sony camera technology.

[steve hyde]

The Sony list is surprising. Thanks for that. My intent is not to derail this thread.

 

Steve

Edited December 19, 2006 by steve hyde

[Juan Guajardo]

interesting, totally agree with David. (Great Analisys)

Edited December 19, 2006 by Juan Guajardo

[steve hyde]

I think it is far fetched to compare my suggestion that Sony lobbies production companies to use their equipment to conspiracy theorists that insist that the the lunar landing was a fake. I just want to learn more about power relationships in the film industry and I assumed companies like Panavision and Sony weild a certain amount of power in the entertainment industry. Certainly they do. It sounds like my assumption is wrong about how they do that.

 

To change tack here.

 

 

What do you all think about the criticism this film is receiving? My favorite critical comment so far is from Liza Grandia. In A December 17 article posted on CommonDreams:

 

"How would the gringos look if we made a film that lumped together within one week the torture at the Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo prisons, the Tuskegee experiments, KKK lynchings, the battle at Wounded Knee, Japanese internment camps, the Trail of Tears, the Salem witch hunts, Texas death row executions, the Rodney King police beatings, the slaughter upon the Gettysburg battlefield, and the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and made this look like a definitive statement on U.S. culture?"

 

source: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1217-24.htm

 

This film is being called a reckless and racist portrait of a culture that still exists. Any disputes to this claim?

 

Steve

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

This film is being called a reckless and racist portrait of a culture that still exists. Any disputes to this claim?

 

Steve

 

Duh! ha ha

 

I lived in Guatemala for 2 years, and as the culture has changed dramatically since before the conquistadors came, the living standards haven't changed much at all. And the people's philosophies on life haven't strayed too far from Mayan days.

 

While I was there I read a lot of books containing Mayan mythology and culture. They were mainly an agricultural civilization (and still are!). The things they worshipped were corn, the moon, the sun, etc. There were no mentionings of human sacrifice, or animal sacrifice even.

 

True, there probably are exceptions, certain savage eras of certain tribes where these practices were common...but the film Apocalypto should never be taken as a representative film of how that culture was or is.

 

Watch "The New World" or "The Mission" for a more well rounded view.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Probably "The DaVinci Code" was their highest profile project of the year, along with "Casino Royale" (although I thought that was MGM).

 

Aside from Sony buying MGM in September, 'Casino Royale' was the only title not owned by the Broccolis.

The 1967 was owned by Charles K.Feldman and Columbia. So the Broccolis would have had to have bought the rights from Sony. Then Sony buys MGM and had to make a seperate deal with the Broccolis.

[steve hyde]

Duh! ha ha

 

I lived in Guatemala for 2 years, and as the culture has changed dramatically since before the conquistadors came, the living standards haven't changed much at all. And the people's philosophies on life haven't strayed too far from Mayan days.

 

While I was there I read a lot of books containing Mayan mythology and culture. They were mainly an agricultural civilization (and still are!). The things they worshipped were corn, the moon, the sun, etc. There were no mentionings of human sacrifice, or animal sacrifice even.

 

True, there probably are exceptions, certain savage eras of certain tribes where these practices were common...but the film Apocalypto should never be taken as a representative film of how that culture was or is.

 

Watch "The New World" or "The Mission" for a more well rounded view.

 

Thanks for the recomendation. I will check out "The New World". I think I have seen "The Mission", but will have to check IMDB to see if that is the film I am thinking of. Clearly the marketing team for "Apocalypto" is using *history* as part of its advertising strategy. Take a look at the website. They have historical *facts* that appear to be written for children.

 

Steve

Edited December 19, 2006 by steve hyde

[Frank Barrera]

Just saw it. Wow.

 

tech: enough has been said here about the odd shutter effect during some of the chasing sequences. what's really odd about it is that sometimes it's there and sometimes it's not. it's possible that it was not intentional. people make mistakes even on the big shows. regardless, the skin tones look great; the high lights hold up; the (admittedly limited) color palette is full, rich and natural; and the over all look is sharp in the way I find a slow to medium speed 35MM stock to be. I also did not have a problem with the 16MM footage. The images in this movie are excellent.

 

story: a bit sentimental and simplistic. but that's hollywood for you. as a father of two small children I admit I got sucked into the story.

 

concept: perhaps one of the best concepts for an action movie ever. the set and setting; the language; the casting all added to a simple "i have to get back to my family but must deal with the bad guys first" scheme. brilliant really. in the end it is an allegory of how man is doomed to a dreadful co-existence with modernity. i can't argue with that.

 

(i don't get out much) I haven't seen an HD transfered to 35MM movie in the theater since Sin City and that looked like crap. But this is a whole other kettle of fish. For me- HD has arrived.

 

I can't wait untill I get my hands on this camera. damage will be done...

 

f

[Francesco Bonomo]

Apocalypto is featured in the January issue of AC, and the article made me want to see this movie even more (it opened today here in Italy, I'll see it on Sunday).

 

Great article, as usual, with lots of interesting information:

- Semlers says he's "still exploring the Genesis at the moment" but he can't say he won't go back to film.

- he didn't use a lightmeter at all on set, he lit by the monitor and occasionally used the waveform

- the look he chose for the genesis was for the camera to emulating 5218, but he rated the "digital stock" at 640 asa.

- the "shutter effect" we talked about so much around here was not an unwanted effect, but it was something that had to happen when they needed to shoot at 2560 asa.

 

The funniest thing, though, is that the opening sequence in the movie was shot with a Arri 435 (at 48fps), and in AC there's a Panavision ad saying "congratulations on the opening of Apocalypto, the images you have created are truly magnificient" :D

 

Great issue, anyway...as usual

[Louis]

Hey Steve,

 

Sure. I got the point. The movie seems to revolve well crafted brain candy/action around a central scene... the diseased-prophecy-girl. It's not precisely a Christian/second coming chunk of presentation but it's not too far off. Yup, the name lets you know what's been on Mel's mind- the end is near.

 

I wouldn't even know where to begin to comment on that. Yet, it is on many people's minds and it seems reasonable that art (if one classifies movies as art) reflects society's issues.

 

I think you may have missed the point (as I saw it anyway). If you think about the quote the beginning of the movie ("A civilization cannot be conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within") and relate it to the climax of the movie (trying not to spoil anything), it seems to me that Gibson is arguing against the recklessness and arrogance that he sees in today's American government and parraleling it to the Mayan culture shortly before its collapse. I'm not the type of person to look to deeply into these sorts of things, but that seemed like the logical meaning of the film, if one were so inclined to look for it.

 

I think it was really gutsy of him to follow up a movie that people saw as appealing to religious conservatives (in its expression of religious belief) with a movie that can be seen as critical of the American civilization under its current religious conservative government. I see it as sort of the modern-day equivalent (if there can be such a thing) of D.W. Griffith making Intolerance as an answer to Birth of a Nation.

 

Anyway, don't want to start a political argument or anything, just found Apocalypto to be tremendously fascinating.

[Max Jacoby]

I only saw the film today, as I was in no real rush to see it. Just like the Jesus film it clearly shows what kind of person Mel Gibdon is. I found this constant reveling in violence to be quite disturbing and there definitley is a strongly masochistic ideology behind all this suffering that characters must go through. He needlessly prolonges shots and adds cuts that do not add anything to the story, but only serve to extend the pain.

 

From a visual point of view I was not very impressed. About the only thing that the Genesis does well enough it sharpness. It still not up to 35mm anamorphic, but it more than adequate I'd say. On the other hand I do not like the way it handles contrast. The picture lacks a certain punch, even in contrasty scenes, and the highlights blow out really ungracefully to my eye. There were loads of low-angle shots and whenever the sky was in shot it really did look very weak. I found the color palette in general to be very dull, the look reminded me of these overly noise-reduced DIs. The smearing motion has been commented on already, but what I found more disturbing were the huge variantions in noise in the picture. I did not mind the noise per se, actually I found that it added a bit of a texture to the film, but some shots really didn't cut well. And there were definitely more than a few of the HD shots that looked liked badly exposed Super 16.

 

Now since the BBC does not want to accept Super 16 anymore because of the potential noise problems, I wonder what they will say when hey have a look at 'Apocalypto'!

[steve hyde]

...just to be clear, since an individual point is easily lost in these forums sometimes, I was only raising the question: what is Gibson working to communicate? I don't claim to know. What I do know is that this film is a high-concept ethnographic film - one that employs the most sophisticated technicians and technologies to present "historical facts" about a culture. Gibson chose to focus on the fact that this particular Native American culture was horrifically violent. However, for me, the absences are glaring. The Yale professor I quoted in this thread said it best: How would the Anglo-North American's feel if the Mayan's made a film that presented everything violent that Anglo-North Americans have ever done and then projected that picture on Cineplex screens all over the world?

 

I think that is a fascinating thing to think about. The ridiculousness of the image of a Mayan mega-movie that focuses on U.S. culture really says something about the uneven power relations between "our culture" and "theirs"...

 

This said, Apocalypto is a movie worth talking about.

 

Steve

Edited January 17, 2007 by steve hyde

[Leo Anthony Vale]

The Yale professor I quoted in this thread said it best: How would the Anglo-North American's feel if the Mayan's made a film that presented everything violent that Anglo-North Americans have ever done and then projected that picture on Cineplex screens all over the world?

 

I think that is a fascinating thing to think about. The ridiculousness of the image of a Mayan mega-movie that focuses on U.S. culture really says something about the uneven power relations between "our culture" and "theirs"...

 

That would be quite a long movie.

Since there's been many movies depicting violence by and among AN-As.

Crime movies, war movies , westerns...

Who cares other than the occassional academician?