Mel's Latest

Apocalypto. Not really alternate history, but jumbled up enough to be. The film is actually a pretty OK action-adventure chase movie with all the standard Gibsonian fair: noble family man hero, despicable bad guys, decadent ruling classes, blood and vengeance. The Native and Latino actors do an excellent job in Yucatec and it is extremely well photographed. The film has a few really fascinating visual details which ring true about PreColumbian Mayan culture (some demonstrated archaeologically and others reasonable speculation), but the overarching backstory makes no sense. The idea that a small village of independent hunterer-gatherers would be living untouched within a 1-2 day's walk of a major Mayan urban center is ludicrious. Instead of the outlying farming villages, milpa plots, and regional towns which would have dotted the landscape within 10-20 km of the royal city, all connected by well-traveled trails, it looks like the city was just plunked down into a wild jungle with simple forest people just there for the taking. It would have made so much more sense of our victimized heroes were farmers living in a satellite village of a neighboring kingdom, but I guess they would then not have met met Mel's criteria as pure noble eco-innocents. Basically, this movie could have been set in Mexico, Egypt, Scotland, or Africa as the story really had nothing inherently to do with MesoAmerica.

The City (unnamed in the movie) looks a lot like Tikal (a Classic center abandoned by AD900). However, unlike Tikal, this place is within a couple days walk of the ocean and was apparently going strong until the early 16th Century, since the Spanish show up in the penultimate scene and inadvertently save our hero from the last few surviving baddies chasing him. Either alternate history or bad history one way or the other.

In some ways this film is similar to "Quest for Fire". Just like that movie tracked a million years of human evolution in one movie, Apacolypto is adeliberately ahistorical series of scenes in one movie which track several thousand years of Mayan history, just to make the point that nature is good and big cities are nasty places full of decadent people.

The movie is also marred by too much artsy gobledegook about prophesies, haunted seers, jaguars, etc., and the sub-plot involving the hero's pregnant wife trying to survive trapped in a cenote is both hard to swallow and forces the plot into an unrealistically short time frame.

However, Mayanists can't be choosy when it comes to Hollywood. The last MesoAmerican-themed movie, "The Sun Kings" (I think), was made over 40 years ago, starred Yul Brynner (I think) and featured greco-egyptian Mayans escaping from Toltecs by sailing galleys across the Gulf of Mexico to set up a colony somewhere in Texas or Louisiana. Compared to that dreck, Apocalypto is a paragon of historical accuracy.

I'm curious what others think.
 
I've been thinking of seeing Apocolypto. I'm a Jew and thing Mel is a repungant, but I do have an intese interest in Mayans and pre-colombians, so I'm sort of on the fence.
 
Apparently the visual representation of the Maya is pretty accurate, but the characterization of their culture as decadent bloodthirsty death-worshippers (who in the movie practice human sacrifice on a mass scale like the Aztecs, which has no basis in history) is causing a lot of Maya scholars to give it a big thumbs-down:

Maya Mistake: Mel Gibson's Gory Action Film Sacrifices a Noble Civilization to Hollywood

Is Apocalypto Pornography?

Since he also anachronistically has the Maya as powerful and living in cities in the 16th century (so the Christian missionaries can have a cameo at the end...in reality the civilization had collapsed and the cities been abandoned 300 years earlier), I don't know why he didn't just use the Aztecs instead.
 
Apparently the visual representation of the Maya is pretty accurate, but the characterization of their culture as decadent bloodthirsty death-worshippers (who in the movie practice human sacrifice on a mass scale like the Aztecs, which has no basis in history) is causing a lot of Maya scholars to give it a big thumbs-down:

Maya Mistake: Mel Gibson's Gory Action Film Sacrifices a Noble Civilization to Hollywood

Is Apocalypto Pornography?

Since he also anachronistically has the Maya as powerful and living in cities in the 16th century (so the Christian missionaries can have a cameo at the end...in reality the civilization had collapsed and the cities been abandoned 300 years earlier), I don't know why he didn't just use the Aztecs instead.

I don't necessarily disagree with the cited works - Mayan human sacrifice rarely, if ever, approached the "industrial" level depicted in the film - and as I mentioned earlier the anachronisms are a problem. It could have been about the Aztecs.

It is interesting, however (given his focus on torture in Braveheart and Passion of the Christ), that Gibson did not depict torture before the sacrifices - a fact which Maya inscriptions and paintings both revel in. Also, if he really wanted to show how decadent the Mayan rulers and nobility were he could have focused in loving detail on the self-mutilation and enemas they committed on themselves as part of these rituals - also well documented in texts and illustrations. I am also an archaeologist, and my opinion he inadvertantly showed his fictional Maya culture in a better light than he could have by focusing only on the (fictional) mass sacrifices. He could have made a much more horrific movie by taking events directly from inscriptions on Stele, the Bonampak murals, and stories in the Popul Vuh. Classic Maya civilization WAS, by western standards, a pretty perverse thing.

The other common anthropological criticism of the movie (the claim that Mel didn't focus on the artistic and intellectual acheivements of the Maya) is stupid. First, he did. In the city, we saw fantastic architecture, industry, sculpture, inscriptions, and paintings galore. It is very clear this is a pretty complex and advanced society. I also think it is fairly clear from the performances of the actors that the Priests and Nobles know full well there was going to be the eclipse and used this knowledge to keep the peasants in line and justify their sacrifices (some reviewers saw this scene differently). Second, do we object when a movie about WW2 or the Holocaust doesn't also remind us that Germans gave the world Beethoven and Goethe? The movie was about human decadence. Personally, I thought it was a compliment to the Maya that Gibson did not feel the need to clutter his message movie up with pointless references to the "good" in Mayan culture (as seen from western sensibilities), but let his depiction stand on its own.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Perhaps he doesn't realize that there is a difference?

Am I the only one to notice the "slaughter of the innocent" theme (especially mixed with the "No civilization can be destroyed from without until it is destroyed from within" line from the beginning of the movie) & how nicely it plays into Gibson's conservitive Catholic religious views?

"Slaughter of the Innocents" and the internal moral destruction of our society is a main argument of the anti-aborition movement.

All of this being said, it is still one hell of good movie. Powerful, moving (even if bloody as any slasher film), well paced, and extremely well presented. Mel may be a squirrel, but the guy can make movies.
 
"Slaughter of the Innocents" and the internal moral destruction of our society is a main argument of the anti-aborition movement.

All of this being said, it is still one hell of good movie. Powerful, moving (even if bloody as any slasher film), well paced, and extremely well presented. Mel may be a squirrel, but the guy can make movies.

Hadn't thought of the anti abortion angle that explicitly I tend to think it's a stretch, but no doubt he does see this as a big part of our society's decadence. Yes, it is a good, well-paced movie, about the fastest 2.5 hours I spend in a theatre over the past few years. Actually, after hearing about how supposedly over-the-top bloody it was, I expected something far more gruesome than it actually was. Either I have become desensitized or most reviewers just wanted another reason to pick on Mel. And it really benefitted by having no "name" actors. I just wish he had paid attention to some basic facts and I'd have loved it.
 
Top