That one is getting rave reviews! Not sure if I can suffer thru Leo’s fake accent, though. Things like that bug me in a movie.
Sometimes, yes.
But he is the owner of an Oscar for Best Director (for a film that won Best Picture).
So who knows whether this one will be a hit or a miss? I want to see some (hopefully objective) reviews before I decide whether to see Apocalypto.
Gibson does seem to have an unhealthy fascination with physical torment.
CNN.com’s take on it, including some interview bits with Mel:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/07/film.apocalypto.ap/index.html
It sounds pretty damn gruesome. I may wait for the PG-13 version.
I think it’ll be a cool movie, but I’ll probably wind up seeing it alone since nobody I know wants to see the thing.
That’s my problem, too! 
I have lots of friends who are into SciFi and Fantasy, and I can’t figure out why this wouldn’t interest them, too. Sure, it’s historical, but it’s about something most of us know so very little about, that it might as well be a fantasy story.
Sorry to be a downer (I was interested in it in a Passion sort of way-- “Interesting. . .wonder how’s he’s warped it all?”) but apparently not so historical: Currently reading a privately circulating review by a Yucatec/Maya scholar from a UC who is not pleased by the smooth revisionism in it (in addition to it apparently being The Road to El Dorado meets the Fugitive meets Disney and the noble savage, in terms of storyline and creativity): “Specifically, 4 of 5 viscerally repugnant practices that are here attributed to Maya culture are actually ‘borrowed’ from the West.” The scholar cites that, for instance, the raid on the protagonist’s village replicated documented activities of British Rubber Company representatives in the Amazon Basin in the 19th c; the slave market is basically Transatlantic-market-style slavery (Maya slavery existed but the market aspect wasn’t part of it); Skulls on stakes appears to be a Spanish conquista innovation, rather than a local invention; etc. The review ends, “In any event, these perversions of the historical record appear to be Gibson’s alone and cause me to wonder if they reflect an agenda. . . At the very least, though, with this movie Gibson has performed a tremendous disservice to scholars who aim at accurate representations of the past, and to the audiences who will have their perspectives of Maya culture tainted by the agenda of one man with too much money.” Since we’re on the dope and all. Have a grain of salt with the film.
I think that’s good info, and I don’t expect complete historical accuracy in a movie. I would wonder, though, that if there were 4-5 repugnant practices that weren’t historical, how many were there that were historical? If only a few, then that’s not good. If it’s more than a dozen, then that ain’t bad… for a movie.
capybara, you aren’t giving us much to go on, there. And I have to say I am reflexively skeptical of this bit:
This reminds me of some “scholars” a few years back who tried to convince us that scalping was a practice that North American Indians “borrowed” from evil Europeans. (Which was not true. Archaeological evidence shows a long history of scalping in Native American culture, predating arrival of Europeans.)
There are some scholars who seem to want to downplay the more violent aspects of Native American culture. Your scholar may or may not be one of them, but without more than a summary of his/her critique, it’s hard to tell.
“Four OF five”, not four OR five.
Also the heart sacrifice stuff is Aztec business, not Maya, and they probably didn’t do it much, anyway (based on sketchy Spanish accounts).
Well, was just mentioning this, in case anyone’s actually interested in accurate portrayal of Pre-Columbian culture, as a counterpoint. Didn’t mean to set off a PC-alarm. I suppose we’ll be hearing more about it in the months to come, with footnotes.
We do know the Maya were not squeamish:
The article does say that numbers were exaggerated by the Spanish, but the sacrifices did happen, and were brutal.
Oh, I’m not trying to tromp on your post, capybara. It’s an important issue to raise. Gibson doesn’t exactly have a good track record for historical accuracy, so you are right to be wary.
To be fair, that article states that pictures of a sacrificial ceremony suggest it was a common practice (imagine all the crucifixions the Christian Europeans performed! Millions of thirty-something men must have been nailed to trees, into the twentieth century). The article aside from your excerpts is about the Aztecs, and notes, again, that the Maya peaked like 600 years before the arrival of the Spanish (puts an interesting spin on the time travel aspect of the end of the film?) so anything the Spanish recorded has zero to do with Mayans.
Anyway, everyone acknowledges that there were sacrifices in the Yucatan-- it’s MASS sacrifices that are being questioned.
No, I appreciate the dialogue-- truth happens eventually this way, ideally. It will be, as I noted, an interesting few months between the movie reviews and the more scholarly journal responses.
OK. But I question this guy’s objectivity in deciding what is and what is not a “repugnant practice”. Skulls on stakes isn’t particularly repugnant, if you ask me, in the sense that it seesm to have been commonly practiced by societies all over the world at one time or another. And in light of the Platform of Skulls it doesn’t seem out of place in Maya culture.
Given IMDB trends of late for any movie remotely controversial, we’ll get a bunch of
1 votes and a bunch of 10 votes, and hardly anything in between.
True, but I think that’s a very difficult accent. If your not used to hearing it, it sounds odd.
I’ve seen previews, some stills,and read various reviews. I don’t have any issues with Mel one way or another. To me, it looks like a classic jungle adventure with some heavy duty violence and gore. I think I can handle that. I’m headed to the 4PM showing after work tomorrow. Report to follow.
Heard the review on NPR’s Morning Edition on the way home from work this morning. According to the reviewer, Mel’s trying to show how moral decay causes a civilization to collapse. The reviewer then says, “Since none of his entourage will say it, I will. You are not part of the solution. You are part of the problem. A big part.” In short, he feels that the level of violence depected in this film is so repugnant that it calls into question the nature of any society that would allow it to be shown.