Apocalypto

[Ken Cangi]

...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

 

Your question, regarding what Gibson was trying to say, is an interesting one, because I have heard several different interpretations from people with whom I've discussed the film. Although, we all agree on one thing: The movie, regardless of its historical accuracy, was entertaining. It was also a pleasant departure from most of the formulamatic, big budget films currently coming out of Hollywood studios.

 

As for Apocalypto's violent interpretation of ancient Mayan culture, I don't understand why everyone is surprised and/or offended. This film is not a documentary. It was made for "E"ntertainment. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive at best. It is no different than most big-budget films, which draw on history in order to develop their storylines. Lets not forget the old John Wayne westerns, in which the Indians were almost always Caucasian actors in war paint. Ridiculous? Of course, yet still entertaining.

 

I think the political correctness of this society has reached a dangerous point, when we look to Hollywood films in order to develop our knowledge of politics and history. Why would anyone hold Mel Gibson to any standard of insuring historical accuracy or, for that matter, possessing any sensitivity toward the issue of racism? Kermit The Frog has more integrity in that regard. My advice to audiences it to lighten up and just enjoy these films for what they are. If anything, we should be more offended by the prices of movie theater popcorn and beverages.

 

Ken

[Keneu Luca]

I think the political correctness of this society has reached a dangerous point, when we look to Hollywood films in order to develop our knowledge of politics and history.

 

I completely agree with this......except.....when the filmmaker(s) claim historical accuracy in their film and/or explain the great lengths they went to to reach accurate details.

 

I do not know if Gibson has made such claims. I'm just saying, in general.

Edited January 17, 2007 by Keneu

[Max Jacoby]

It was also a pleasant departure from most of the formulamatic, big budget films currently coming out of Hollywood studios.

In what way do you consider it a pleasant departure from standard Hollywood fare? Except that it had a cast of unknows who spoke a foreign language, this film still struck me as a typical run-of-the mill action film. The script and direction used standard genre conventions (i.e I could see the blood dripping from the tree where the character hides coming from a mile away already). From an artistic and technical point of view I failed to be surprised by any of what was on the screen.

[Ken Cangi]

In what way do you consider it a pleasant departure from standard Hollywood fare? Except that it had a cast of unknows who spoke a foreign language, this film still struck me as a typical run-of-the mill action film. The script and direction used standard genre conventions (i.e I could see the blood dripping from the tree where the character hides coming from a mile away already). From an artistic and technical point of view I failed to be surprised by any of what was on the screen.

 

It was indeed an action film, although hardly run-of-the-mill. That is not to say that the plot was in any way complex. I also enjoyed the look of the Genesis. It suited the fast-panning chase scenes. As I've said before: It's a look. It is not film, nor does it need to be for better or worse.

 

Don't get me wrong. I love the look of film. I always have, but I also get bored always seeing the same thing. This film clearly had a different look, and it was, in my and many other's opinions, a good look. I was entertained by this movie, although not nearly as much so as from all of the silly rhetoric over it. In one breath, people are saying that Mel Gibson shouldn't be taken seriously, but what I see is that he has easily been able to tug at the proverbial goat, if you know what I mean.

 

Cheers,

 

Ken

[steve hyde]

...a movie is always about more than entertainment. When was the last time you succesfully erased one from your brian? When we see a film it becomes brain baggage and thus it makes an impression on our consciousness. I agree that it is a sad state of affairs that, for many people, this will be as close to Mayan culture as they will ever get - that they will not pick up a book on Mayan Anthropology - that they will not have the opportunity to even attend college (only 25% of Americans do) where they can study and learn about Mayan civilization.

 

This is where Mel Gibson steps in. He makes a movie that capitalizes on historical "facts" and thus explicitly (not implicitly) makes claims to historical objectivity. His authoritative marketing strategies and cinematic tone make it part education and part entertainment, but what is the substance of the education.

 

If only 25% of Americans go to college, that means 75% get information where ever they can find it. I suspect more and more people are turning to cinema to learn about the cultures of the world. It's easy and fun and you don't have to read....except subtitles. ;)

 

just have a look at the marketing website and see if they are trying to capitalize on historical truth:

 

http://apocalypto.movies.go.com/

 

Steve

[Ken Cangi]

...a movie is always about more than entertainment. When was the last time you succesfully erased one from your brian?

 

just have a look at the marketing website and see if they are trying to capitalize on historical truth:

 

http://apocalypto.movies.go.com/

 

Steve

 

Movies are generally about more than one specific thing, although that does not, by default, mean that they are claiming historical accuracy. As for your comment about images being not erased from my mind, many movies - real or utter fiction - have left indelible imprints on my memory.

 

I looked at the entire website, and I saw no indication that it was trying to present historical truth. Here are some quotes from the synopsis:

 

" From Academy Award winning filmmaker Mel Gibson ("The Passion of the Christ," "Braveheart"), comes APOCALYPTO: a heart stopping mythic action-adventure set against the turbulent end times of the once great Mayan civilization. When his idyllic exsistence is brutally disrupted by a violent force, a man is taken on a perilous journey to a world ruled by fear and oppresion were a harrowing end awaits him. Through a twist of fate and spurred by the power of his love for his woman and family he will make a desperate break to return home and to ultimately save his way of life.

 

Visceral, thrilling and boldly thought-provoking, APOCALYPTO is directed by Mel Gibson, produced by Gibson and Bruce Davey and written by Gibson and Farhad Safinia, who co-produces. The executive producers are Ned Dowd andVicki Christianson.

 

The behind-the-scenes team, who spent intense months shooting in the jungle and recreating a spectacular Mayan kingdon of soaring pyramids and mysterious temples, includes" Blah Blah Blah.........

 

In subsequent chapters, terms like:

 

- " Though he began his career as a charismatic film idol............................................................................

.................................he has become just as well known as a major American director with a penchant for intense storytelling."

 

- " If Gibson's vision for APOCALYPTO was going to come to life, the director knew he would need actors who would make the story feel completely and utterly real, as if it were unfolding in the here and now."

 

The site writers are very careful to include qualifying words and terms (in red) to insure that we know this is a fictional account. I had no problem recognizing this.

 

Your comment about 70% of the population not having a college education infers that not having a college education precludes that group from possessing common sense. Insinuating that non college-educated people are too ignorant to recognize this film as fiction is condescending - not that I am convinced of your having meant it that way. Unfortunately, it comes off like that, to me.

[Ken Cangi]

In my last post, the sentence: "In subsequent chapters, terms like:" is not supposed to be in Italic print. It is a heading. My apologies.

[steve hyde]

Thanks Ken. I was specifically making reference to the Flash program on "Maya Culture" that is linked from the main menu of the website. My point is that Gibson is capitalizing on historical currency here making his project look like a work of historical research.

 

I'm not saying non-college educated don't have common sense. I am saying that Gibson's film works to produce a discourse on Mayan people that speaks only to their savage violence and inferiority. It is a tired half-true story and one that was used to support North and South American genocides and continues to be used to keep the Mayan people in a choke hold of poverty.

 

As a final statement on this matter, since we should really be talking about camera lenses or shutter smearing or something like that, I would again, encourage anyone interested in learning how and why this particular film works to produce an *orientalizing discourse* to read Edward Said's "Orientalism". This is the book about how Anglo-westerners go about creating the image of exotic savages for their own entertainment purposes and to make them selves feel more civilized and superior. This is what the book is about and this is what I think Gibson is doing.

 

Steve

[David Mullen ASC]

This is the book about how Anglo-westerners go about creating the image of exotic savages for their own entertainment purposes and to make them selves feel more civilized and superior. This is what the book is about and this is what I think Gibson is doing.

 

I honestly don't think that's what Gibson is doing -- for one thing, there isn't much purpose in feeling superior to a long-vanished culture, and secondly, he seems to obviously be drawing parallels with modern civilization. And thirdly, his hero isn't a white person in "Apocalypto."

 

The message isn't "isn't it great that now we live in a civilized culture?" but more "don't feel so smug because our modern society may also decline and then destroy itself. History can repeat itself." After all, the hero of the movie is the hunter-gatherer, not the people of one of the most advanced cultures of its day. If anything, Gibson is always criticizing the more advanced civilizations that have come to dominate his heros -- the Romans over Judea, the English over Scotland, etc. It's not about an attack on primitive cultures but supposedly "superior" cultures.

 

I get no sense from his movies that he feels that modern man has something to feel superior about. As a known reader of history, I think he believes the opposite actually, that mankind is inherently cruel and savage and uses civilization to disquise that, but history shows over and over again that it's all a lie.

 

And finally, here's a director who has spent millions of his own money to hire an all-Native American cast to do a movie that is not in English, without a "good" white character as the hero (unlike "Dances with Wolves") -- this sort of thing should be encouraged more, not condemned.

[Ken Cangi]

I was specifically making reference to the Flash program on "Maya Culture" that is linked from the main menu of the website. My point is that Gibson is capitalizing on historical currency here making his project look like a work of historical research.

It is obvious that Gibson wants to give the film an air of authenticity. The website says that. That is called marketing. Marketing and claiming historical accuracy are apples and oranges. Including a blurb on Mayan Culture creates a point of interest for the potential moviegoer, which is marketing - quite successful to, I might add. Again, I defer back to my original post, wherein I said that anyone mistaking this movie for fact would be naïve at best. It is entertainment, which is sometimes, as David suggested, meant to be thought provoking. It succeeds at both of those things, IMO.

 

It is a tired half-true story and one that was used to support North and South American genocides and continues to be used to keep the Mayan people in a choke hold of poverty.

With all due respect, Steve, this is quite a stretch. Civilizations prosper or fail based on their intrinsic strengths and weaknesses. The Mayan culture is no different. It didn?t take the American Black community long to figure this out. In a few hundred years, they have gone from shackled slaves to a thriving economic and political force in the same country in which they were originally enslaved. They have earned that respect. They chose not to lie down and take it. The Mayans, on the other hand, were the rulers of their own civilization, and they still failed. This fact cannot be discounted.

 

As a final statement on this matter, since we should really be talking about camera lenses or shutter smearing or something like that.

Being a neophyte in the profession of ?moving? film, I do much more listening than talking. Given the wealth of technical, working knowledge on this website, I would have little to offer, outside of lighting experience and a knowledge of the physical and technical characteristics of celluloid, per se, so I generally assume the position of student. This On The Big Screen thread, unlike most of the technical threads, is about movies in general, so this style of topic seems appropriate for this thread.

 

I honestly don't think that's what Gibson is doing -- for one thing, there isn't much purpose in feeling superior to a long-vanished culture, and secondly, he seems to obviously be drawing parallels with modern civilization. And thirdly, his hero isn't a white person in "Apocalypto."

 

The message isn't "isn't it great that now we live in a civilized culture?" but more "don't feel so smug because our modern society may also decline and then destroy itself. History can repeat itself." After all, the hero of the movie is the hunter-gatherer, not the people of one of the most advanced cultures of its day. If anything, Gibson is always criticizing the more advanced civilizations that have come to dominate his heros -- the Romans over Judea, the English over Scotland, etc. It's not about an attack on primitive cultures but supposedly "superior" cultures.

 

I get no sense from his movies that he feels that modern man has something to feel superior about. As a known reader of history, I think he believes the opposite actually, that mankind is inherently cruel and savage and uses civilization to disquise that, but history shows over and over again that it's all a lie.

 

And finally, here's a director who has spent millions of his own money to hire an all-Native American cast to do a movie that is not in English, without a "good" white character as the hero (unlike "Dances with Wolves") -- this sort of thing should be encouraged more, not condemned.

 

Well said, David. I think your evaluation is spot on.

Edited January 18, 2007 by Ken Cangi

[steve hyde]

Thanks for voicing your views.

 

The fact that we tend to speak of Maya Civilization in past tense speaks to the hegemony of popular history. The Roman Empire fell, but Romans are still Romans for example. The Maya are a civilization that still exists - that still struggles to exists because the Guatemalan State has long been at war with them. They are a culture fighting to maintain their language and customs. Like most Latin American countries, Guatemala is governed by the so called "whites" ( wealthy mestizos) with strong ties to networks of transnational capitalism. The Guatemalan State depends on the labor of the Maya Civilization - the impoverished mountain people that work in the agricultural industries and garment factories in Guatemala City. The state wants the mountain people to conform to the wants of the state. However, many families choose to continue the pastoral life, living simply growing thier own food, not earning much money, speaking their own language and not paying taxes to the state. In turn the mestizos have maintained a popular racism against the Maya: e.g. they are "backwards", "stupid", "ignorant", "live like dogs", have darker skin, speak a different language, dress differently, live differently and are thus "inferior".

 

I am not suggesting that Gibson is conspiring to present an image of white superiority. But what I am suggesting is that he does. In other words, Gibson's lack of imagination, drove him right into the trenches of cliche stereotypes. As any writer knows, writing is a war against cliche and stereotype. Cliches and stereotypes exist because they were already established when the writer sets pen to paper. I don't see Gibson fighting a war against sterotypes.

 

I see a fimmaker who must be thinking: my audience is a bunch of idiots anyway. They don't give a damn about Maya culture, they want to be entertained. Cinema is a decadent art so let's serve up the decadence.

Make it a fast paced action movie and make millions when the video game comes out.

 

My guess is that Gibson doesn't know enough about history and geography to even understand the offenses his movie commits. I don't think he recognizes that the film he has made is ideological ammunition for the Guatemalan State... He's an entertainer and he can get away with sloppy research for a pseudo-historical movie and still make money off of it. He is not held to high standards and therefore the standards are lower than low..

 

Steve

[Rupe Whiteman]

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'!

 

... Yeah - Like Max I was pretty underwhelmed by the film... I've read various broadsheet reviews that say this movie verges on the profound but I didn't see any evidence of that.

 

... You only have to look at the jungle colours in Apocalypse Now to compare colour renditions. There were one or two (quick) shots that looked like they'd been shot on a low rent dv or something (particularly in the opening scene) and the hd look was inconsistant. Perhaps in such variable lighting situations film would be too but it did lack a certain punch at times... In the print I saw I was less aware of the variations in 'noise than Max.

 

I watched the film with two friends who don't work in the business. Both were oblivioius to it being shot digitally... That's the way it is...

 

But didn't you all find the film a little too predictable? It's not a film that I'll think about tonight, let alone tomorrow or next week, or next year, or....

 

Rupe Whiteman UK

[steve hyde]

sorry. I made a double post

Edited January 18, 2007 by steve hyde

[Ken Cangi]

I see a fimmaker who must be thinking: my audience is a bunch of idiots anyway. They don't give a damn about Maya culture, they want to be entertained.

 

Steve

 

I am getting the impression that you are much too close to the topic of Mayan Culture to see this movie in the positive light of entertainment. Your statement suggests that David and I are to be added to that "bunch of idiots", because we clearly don't see this from your perspective. I don't mean to speak for David; his own words did that clearly enough.

 

This is a fictional story, based - loosely - in the time period of Mayan Civilization. Jaguar Paw et al are fictional characters in a fictional story, and in spite of the apparent cliches, some of us idiots were still able to enjoy it for its pure entertainment value. Again, looking to Hollywood, on any level, for historical insight is an exercise in futility. Moreover, whether I care at all about the current state of Mayan culture, or not, my feelings have not been influenced in any way by this film. Seeing this movie, for me, was like reading a fictional action novel.

 

Ken

[steve hyde]

I am getting the impression that you are much too close to the topic of Mayan Culture to see this movie in the positive light of entertainment. Your statement suggests that David and I are to be added to that "bunch of idiots", because we clearly don't see this from your perspective. I don't mean to speak for David; his own words did that clearly enough.

 

This is a fictional story, based - loosely - in the time period of Mayan Civilization. Jaguar Paw et al are fictional characters in a fictional story, and in spite of the apparent cliches, some of us idiots were still able to enjoy it for its pure entertainment value. Again, looking to Hollywood, on any level, for historical insight is an exercise in futility. Moreover, whether I care at all about the current state of Mayan culture, or not, my feelings have not been influenced in any way by this film. Seeing this movie, for me, was like reading a fictional action novel.

 

Ken

 

 

My intent is not to deliver insults to anyone - not even Mel Gibson. I am however being openly critical of Mel Gibson the auteur filmmaker and his film Apocalypto. I am suggesting that he insults the intelligence of his otherwise intelligent audience. I have not suggested that the pure entertainment value view of the film is wrong. However, I am making an attempt to explain why I don't hold that view.

 

For me this hearkens back to "black face cinema" which was characterized by a lot of clowning around at the expense of non-whites. While Gibson's project is much different than the old black face films (casting choices etc.) I still see similarities. Look for yourself - you will see them too. Black face cinema was once celebrated as entertainment, but as the culture evolved the culture came to see it as racist - as horribly racist. as contemptibly racist. an outrage.

 

Yes I am close to Latin American mountain cultures. I am currently producing a short-form documentary film on one aspect of Andean culture. It is a modest no-budget 16mm film.

 

As a filmmaker, I feel that I must engage in a critical dialog about filmmaking and filmmakers. Personally, I don't want to stand aside uncritically and say boys will be boys and Hollywood will be Hollywood or that it is futile to look to Hollywood films for historical accuracy. Why? Because the most valuable currency filmmakers have access to is the currency of *truth*...ask any screenwriter.... Without the power of truth you don't have a screenplay and this is especially true for fiction films. Fiction is the art of lying to tell the truth. If the fiction does not speak to truth it will go unnoticed. Truth is the primary currency of cinema art.

Gibson is pulling some truth tricks to sell his film - but worse, he is capitalizing on the half-truth of stereotypes. Filmmakers and scholars alike have to fight for higher standards and we do that through argumentation and voicing the arguments publicly.

 

I do not want to insult anyone, but that is the risk I have to take to voice my outrage on this film. Some people like it and yes it is true that I think those who like it are being bamboozled. I have tried to explain how and why they are being bamboozled in this thread. I make the argument out of respect to the members of this forum even if my view is different than the one they hold. I am not saying that my view is the *correct* view. I'm only saying that it is a view worth consideration.

 

Respectfully,

 

Steve

[Ken Cangi]

For me this hearkens back to "black face cinema" which was characterized by a lot of clowning around at the expense of non-whites. While Gibson's project is much different than the old black face films (casting choices etc.) I still see similarities

 

Steve,

Comparing this movie to black face cinema is fanciful. Which act or acts portrays that to you? The violence? Are you suggesting that gratuitous violence did not occur in Mayan society? Are you further suggesting that it didn?t happen on a regular basis? Violence like that happens on a regular basis in all societies ? past and present. Maybe it was Gibson?s portrayal of ceremonial beheadings ? not like such a thing has ever taken place in an ancient society. A more realistic comparison to black face cinema would have been Caucasians as Mayans, speaking English in their portrayal of the Mayan Culture.

 

Lets just say, for the sake of supporting your argument, that Gibson was trying in some obscure way to portray real life. Is it not possible that tribal wars like the ones on Gibson?s movie took place? Of course it is, because they still do in several cultures. So, honestly, Steve, from where are you drawing these conclusions? You are right about one point. Black Face Cinema was racist and inappropriate, but Apocalypto is in no way like Black Face Cinema. The notion is farfetched.

 

My intent is not to deliver insults to anyone - not even Mel Gibson.

It might not have been your intention, although you have managed to continually insult many. These are your words: ?Some people like it and yes it is true that I think those who like it are being bamboozled.? This film entertained me and several of my very educated friends. For the record, none among us believes that he or she was bamboozled. I honestly believe that insult was not your intention. I am merely trying to explain to you how it comes across.

 

I should add one other aspect to this discussion, for clarity. I have spent the majority of my adult life in the mountain lifestyle. My new film company is devoted to filming documentaries about such cultures, as well as those who practice their recreations among them. I have dear friends from many of these cultures throughout South America and Asia. I even had a conversation with a friend in Salt Lake, who was born and raised in Tibet. He told me that some of the scenes were quite entertaining to him ? especially the scene in which the irascible warrior tells his compatriots that their friend is fu**ed, after having been bitten by the snake. I too thought that line was pretty funny.

 

Yes I am close to Latin American mountain cultures. I am currently producing a short-form documentary film on one aspect of Andean culture. It is a modest no-budget 16mm film.

This is an interesting coincidence, because the endangered Andean Mountain Cat was the impetus for the logo of our company. I did, however, use my own pet as a stand-in, as recruiting an actual mountain cat would have presented quite the challenge.

 

My point is that I am not insensitive to the plights of these distressed cultures. It?s just that eviscerating Mel?s Gibson for having drawn on one of them in order to create his storyline is a bit radical, in my point of view. Gibson is a storyteller, and he does it well. His last three films have proven that without a shadow of doubt.

 

Ken

[David Mullen ASC]

Obviously the first thing that comes to mind when your interests are merely commercial like Mel Gibson's are... is to make a historical movie with an all-Native American cast not speaking in English and spend a lot of money on the project. I'm sure he was merely rushing his Mayan civilization movie out there to beat Michael Bay's.

[steve hyde]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I am indeed offering a radical view. We need radical views because they challenge that which is accepted as "normal". It is one of many perspectives. One that may offend some and I regret offending, but I don't think less of anyone for disagreeing with me. That would go against my belief that diversity is central to our survival on this planet. Take the view as entertainment - a ridiculous line of argument - or a valid perspective.

 

Ken, your company sounds intersting. We will have to discuss mountain film when appropriate. Outside the closed space of this good debate.. ;)

 

It is not any one particular scene that reminds me of "black face cinema" it is the work as a whole. The notion may be far-fetched, but I think it is within reach. Black face was built on isolating specific characteristics and then exaggrating them to the point of absurdity. It was a way of saying ha ha ha look how different balck people are. This is precisely what Gibson has done. He has taken one charcteristic (violence) and shown us how riduculous the Maya are. This is why the film makes me mad. It is a classic case of a powerful conservative voice setting us back fifty years and this is of course the prominent theme of the current era.

 

As an aside, I think Black Face lives on on the show COPS, by the way, and in some ways COPS is worse than black face ever was. (it aint about the make up)

 

It is probably worth repeating that I am no fan of "political correctness" in art. I am not suggesting that filmmakers should go out and try to right every wrong that society has ever commited. I like the satire performances that speak to the absurd logic of prejudice against race, religous, class and other cultural differences. Satire is great for that. But this pseudo-historical authoritarian cineplex crap gets under my skin and makes me want to speak up.

 

 

Steve

[David Mullen ASC]

So where was your moral outrage when Gibson painted Englishmen and Romans are violent bastards? I haven't read your posts complaining about how Gibson set us back 50 years in his portrayal of those cultures. He's hardly limited his recreations of historical villiany to people of color. Besides, you seem to ignore that "Apolcalypto" had a both good and bad characters, not just bad. I guess it's just too bad Gibson couldn't find the positive side of institutional human sacrifice; if only he looked harder...

 

If Gibson has a constant theme, it's that we're ALL savages, past and present, but you seem to think he actually only thinks ancient Mayans were savage. Maybe you would have been happier if he said "savagery is universal in human history except for the Mayans, the only culture in the history of mankind to be free of it."

 

On the lighter side:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_brief...o_star_wants_to

[steve hyde]

....what can I say, David, I'm not always the self-appointed Mel Gibson police.... ;)

 

Steve

[Ken Cangi]

Steve,

 

I just returned from a showing of Children of Men, and I'm curious to know your thoughts on Alfonso Cuarón's portrayal of the English as heartless barbarians, who herd and execute helpless immigrants. I am of course teasing you a bit, but I would like to get your opinion.

 

BTW, The camera work was outstanding. The ambush and subsequent chase scene was riveting.

[Max Jacoby]

So where was your moral outrage when Gibson painted Englishmen and Romans are violent bastards?

Actually a friend is currently writing a paper on the historical inaccuracies of 'Braveheart'. Apparently the film is mostly an invention and does not conform with historical evidence at all.

 

As for painting people as savages, I've said before that it must be obvious by now that this is just a reflection of Gibson's primitive belief and how he sees himself. I don't think he's out to insult anyone, as in my mind the only person that his films reflect badly upon are their pain-obsessed director. I'm sure his shrink has a field day watching his films!

[David Mullen ASC]

I agree with you that these films as a whole reflect an overall belief system that is obsessed with human violence and inhumanity, probably a reflection of his own personal demons.

 

I just get uncomfortable when criticism of a work of art and fiction starts to fall into demands of balanced and fair viewpoints, historical accuracy, etc. To me, it would be like demanding that Kubrick show the military leadership in "Dr. Strangelove" in a more fair light. I don't look to artistic expression to be anything more than a reflection of the viewpoint of the artist, which I can share or not share.

 

If I have a criticism of "Apocalypto" it's merely that he squanders a rich opportunity to have a story with more intellectual depth. I don't mind the "The Human Prey / Most Deadly Game" action storyline as a loose framework for exploring an interesting historical situation, but he overly balanced the movie in that direction.

[Max Jacoby]

I tend to agree with that. I don't judge films on their historical accuracy either, I think that's completely besides the point. The whole premise of films is that they are fiction so they just cannot be judged by how close they come to some 'truth'. Especially since it is impossible, even in a biography/documentary to reflect the whole, complete truth of a person or event, that's just beyond human capabilities.

 

The only time I was annoyed by an obvious bending of truth was in 'JFK'. To me that film pretended to depict events as they had really happened (unlike 'Apocalypto' for instance which was an obvious fiction), when in fact it was mostly made up. They even went so far as to mix historical footage with their own pseudo-historical footage in what I felt was a really dishonest way, because you didn't know which was which and Oliver Stone used that to support his own conspiracy theories.

 

On a similar note, I also find it very annoying when a famous book gets turned into a film. A lot of the time people start complaining because the film is not like the book. A film can never be like the book and if people want the experience of the book, then they should just read the book again. It is extremely limiting for filmmakers if they have to be faithful to a source, for fear of upsetting the fans, instead of being just able to use that source as a starting-off point to provide their own interpretation of a story. After all that's what an artist does.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

If Gibson has a constant theme, it's that we're ALL savages, past and present, but you seem to think he actually only thinks ancient Mayans were savage. Maybe you would have been happier if he said "savagery is universal in human history except for the Mayans, the only culture in the history of mankind to be free of it.

 

The closing lines:

 

Seven: What are they?

Jaguar Paw: They bring men.

Seven: Should we go to them?

Jaguar Paw: We must go to the forest. To seek a new beginning. Come, Turtles Run...

 

Does that sound as if the Spanairds are saviours or another group of dangerous savages?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually a friend is currently writing a paper on the historical inaccuracies of 'Braveheart'. Apparently the film is mostly an invention and does not conform with historical evidence at all.

 

---Quite a while back I read in a military history magazine that 'Braveheart' is rather popular in Scotland, despite the Scots knowing from school that the movie is quite inaccurate. They simply like to watch the English get whipped.

 

A major in accuracy is that Wallace was a nobleman, he dressed and lived like an English nobleman.

Portraits of him, have him in a full dress suit of plate armor.

 

& the English foot soldiers armor, where did they get that? If it was an attempt to avoid string mail, it was a dismal failure.