Apocalypto

Went to see it last night; visually interesting, but ...

Tyler Cowen says "The film is about theology; virtually frame-by-frame it is commentary on Passion of the Christ, the Bible, or both. Call it mishnah, if you wish; the reviews I read didn't get this at all. The movie's central question is what the idea of a miracle, or salvation, can mean in a non-Christian world."

... it seemed to me that the the film was taking the point of view that the destruction of Native American civilizations and the near-genocide of Native American population groups was neither a criminal act of colonialism, nor a world-historical accident, nor merely one of those tragic things that couldn't have been prevented, but the divine act of a just God eager to punish them for their sins.

12/9/06 10:31AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

Lots of good reviews around. I said last night that it was fascinating to have a Medieval Catholic, or at best a 19th Century Catholic, making major motion pictures. Sort of as if de Maistre was reborn as a subtle Hollywood producer.

People who don't like Gibson probably lack an understanding and appreciation of the profundity of the Marquis de Sade.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on December 9, 2006 11:16 AM

The Mayans never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Posted by: otto on December 9, 2006 11:27 AM

"the divine act of a just God eager to punish them for their sins."

you mean sodom and gomorrah, in other words.

pretty much what you'd expect from old testament mel.

(that strain of x-tian evangelicals who hate all jews, but prefer the guns & guts moses to the dirty hippy jesus).

Posted by: kid bitzer on December 9, 2006 12:09 PM

by the way--

your read is pretty much what I heard Kenneth Turan say on NPR; it's a parable about a civilization on the brink of decline because of its internal moral decay.

To which Turan said: you and your revolting slasher films are not the solution, mel, you are the problem.

Posted by: kid bitzer on December 9, 2006 12:11 PM

I breathe a new sigh of relief that his Holocaust film was cancelled.

Posted by: anonymous on December 9, 2006 12:26 PM

chief Zero Wolf (from the Slate review)

Why is the chief of the invaders an enormously overweight British-Jewish comedian/detective who cultivates orchids and starred in the original Producers? Must the everything be the Jews's fault?

Posted by: Matt Weiner on December 9, 2006 01:00 PM

"... it seemed to me that the the film was taking the point of view that the destruction of Native American civilizations and the near-genocide of Native American population groups was neither a criminal act of colonialism, nor a world-historical accident, nor merely one of those tragic things that couldn't have been prevented, but the divine act of a just God eager to punish them for their sins."

That's an interesting observation, but was it any good?

You can say the same thing about "the Waste Land" and Anglo-European (and American) civilization in the 1920s, and that was a good poem and stuff.

Posted by: Linus on December 9, 2006 01:41 PM

(that strain of x-tian evangelicals who hate all jews, but prefer the guns & guts moses to the dirty hippy jesus).

You have no idea what you are talking about kid bitzer.

Posted by: Mark Adams on December 9, 2006 01:55 PM

Since the Mayan Civilizations collapsed during the eighth and ninth centuries CE, it's a little hard to figure how Western colonialism could have had anything to do with it. Or do you figure that if the West doesn't have anything to do with a catastrophe, a movie about it must be automatically designed to absolve the West of responsibility for a completely unrelated later catastrophe that happened to occur in the same place? A really strange comment.

Posted by: David on December 9, 2006 03:13 PM

Since the Mayan Civilizations collapsed during the eighth and ninth centuries CE, it's a little hard to figure how Western colonialism could have had anything to do with it.

The film is set in the 16th century at the time of the Spanish Conquest; it does not depict the much earlier collapse of Classic Maya civilization.

Posted by: Swift Loris on December 9, 2006 03:29 PM

Uh David, while Mayan civilization did collapse from its height in the ninth century, it most certainly did not disappear, and the Maya have a long history with Spanish colonialism and its effects. Matt's seems to be a perfectly defensible reading of the film.

Posted by: eric on December 9, 2006 03:35 PM

While Mayan civilization was mostly history by 1492, the incredible brutality of the Aztec regime did play a role in their downfall by allowing Cortez to recruit Indian allies desperate to see the Aztecs go. The vast majority of Cortez's army consisted of rebel Indians.

Posted by: Steve Sailer on December 9, 2006 03:54 PM

Back on topic, I really liked when the jaguar bit that fellow's face off.

Posted by: Drew on December 9, 2006 06:22 PM

Having not seen the film, (and am unlikely to) I'm left wondering how much of the "angry god smiting" stuff people are reading into the film is a result of what's actually on the screen, and how much of it is a result of the identity of the director. I'm not saying MY or Spackerman are wrong, just that they may not have been predisposed to given the benefit of the doubt to the film on its own merits...

Posted by: Pooh on December 9, 2006 10:40 PM

Bob McM:

I said last night that it was fascinating to have a Medieval Catholic, or at best a 19th Century Catholic, making major motion pictures.

There's a big difference between a 20th Century Australian/American movie star trying to live out a 19th century or medieval Catholicism and an actual 19th century and medieval catholic, I'd wager. A small point, this, but an important one.

Posted by: Tyler Simons on December 10, 2006 02:26 AM

Re: it seemed to me that the the film was taking the point of view that the destruction of Native American civilizations and the near-genocide of Native American population groups was neither a criminal act of colonialism, nor a world-historical accident, nor merely one of those tragic things that couldn't have been prevented, but the divine act of a just God eager to punish them for their sins.

I have not seen the film, but it was my understanding it dealy exclusively with Native Americans (the Maya and their enemies) so I have trouible seeing where the above moral to the tale would come from. Unless the Spaniards show up as good guys at the end?

Re: The vast majority of Cortez's army consisted of rebel Indians.

But not Mayans, who lived much further south than the region Cortez traversed and found his allies in. By the way, some Mayan kingdoms actually held off the Spanish and remained independent until well into the 17th century.

Posted by: Jonf on December 10, 2006 11:59 AM

SPOILER (quoted from moviepooper.com; I haven't seen the movie either)

A solar eclipse saves Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood) from being sacrificed. He escapes into the forest, injured and chased by the warriors who sacked his village. All but two of the warriors die. Jaguar Paw reaches his wife, older son, and brand new younger son just in time to rescue them from the water-filled sinkhole. The family walks off into the forest just as several boatloads of Spaniards come ashore near the village.

Posted by: Matt Weiner on December 10, 2006 02:51 PM

"a 20th Century Australian/American"

Actually, Gibson was born in America.

Posted by: Jon H on December 10, 2006 10:32 PM

A solar eclipse saves him? That's an interesting twist. I was hoping he would be able to distract the Mayans by removing his false teeth and monocle.

Seriously, the Mayans were fantastically good astronomers. The Dresden Codex was full of predicted dates of solar eclipses. They would not have been caught by surprise.
I knew this when I was eight, because Herge made the same mistake in "Prisoners of the Sun".

Posted by: ajay on December 11, 2006 09:56 AM

I agree in general with MattY, but the big point (to me) was that the natives were lucky to be colonized by the West (quite a revelation after such a dull and otherwise pointless 120 minute setup) The new beginning refers to the souls of the natives, but also to their earthly predicament. Contrary to popular opinion, the colonists were actually the saviors, not the criminals (at least better than their wild indian masters. Mel also takes on small pox, which he implies was there before the West came - another Fox News Revisionist History Channel moment among many in this film).

The film is clearly pro-colonialism, which is ironic because Mel said he was making a statement about Bush 43's Iraq War (we're supposed to view the local dictators as symbolic of the U.S. government, not the foreign invaders from the sea). This is a pro-Bush, pro-neocon, pro-Iraq War movie, not the opposite (no matter what Mel thinks or says).

Posted by: Marty on December 11, 2006 01:47 PM

the part i like most is when middle eye (main man on the print ads) said "Yan kaxtik tuumben chuunuj" which translates to..im on drusg.

Posted by: bicolano on February 7, 2007 10:12 AM

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Posted by: youtube on November 16, 2007 04:29 PM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet