@Hi Jazz Aloha Yeah, I agree with you on Apocalypto. I thought it was very enjoyable. I thought there were some really great scenes in it as well. A few that stand out for me are the scenes where the captured Mayans are being taken by a rival tribe to that tribe’s city. They are are attached to one another and there is a scene where one of the Mayan’s almost falls off a rock face almost pulling his fellow tribesman down. I also liked the the heart cutting scenes. I haven’t watched it too recently but I believe, ( and correct me if I am wrong ), there is a shot where one of the Mayan’s heart’s that has been taken out of their chests is beating on it’s own. I also liked how the father character of the rival tribe has his son killed off by the protagonist and is even more determined at that point to kill the protagonist. Also, I like the fact that Gibson used actual language that would have been spoken at such a time. A few other great scenes are where when the main characters who have been spared the heart cutting, are told to run down a stretch of land while trying not to be lanced in the back by spears and I also think that the scene near the end where the protagonist’s wife and child are almost drowning and I think they are also being threatened by some wild animal added some great tension to the movie.
@Hal
Yeah, there are some really good action/suspense sequences in the film. I forgot to mention that the two villains in the film (the leader of the slave traders, the one whose son dies at the hands of the protagonist, and the guy the protagonist almost kills) were very effective. They were equally intimidating and unlikable.
Do you think the film has a larger point? What do you think the film is about? (I hadn’t really given this much thought, as I mainly enjoyed the film for what’s on the surface.)
@Jazz Aloha In answer to your question, maybe the film shows the end of Mayan civilization, hence the title, because we see Europeans arriving on a beach at the end of the film. Also, during the heart cutting scene, there is an eclipse which might be a sign that their civilization will be over soon. Maybe it shows the differences between tribes and how they did things like enslave each other. Maybe Mel Gibson sees the Mayan’s civilization ending in order to give way to the Christian religion of the Europeans, ( I believe there are priests when the Europeans land on the beach at the end ), and I guess with the beginnings of a new religion, old beliefs will be forgotten. I guess that’s what it might mean.
-the historical and cultural accuracy of the Mayans-
Well, like any representation in film, its “accuracy” should be taken with a grain of salt. The film makes some attempts to be accurate, but there are loads of points to be critical of. It freely mixes details from different historical eras, and, for the most part, Gibson focuses on the violent, sensational aspects of Maya cultures and almost completely leaves out the the more sophisticated, intellectually advanced aspects of Maya cultures (perhaps this is appropriate for the genre, but not so appropriate when it comes to notions of “accuracy”).
edit:
-What do you think the film is about?-
It’s about our own culture, which Gibson sees as being on the edge of the same sort of collapse. It’s a cautionary tale. Gibson:
“It was important for me to make that parallel because you see these cycles repeating themselves over and over again,” Gibson says. “People think that modern man is so enlightened, but we’re susceptible to the same forces.”-maybe the film shows the end of Mayan civilization-
Here’s one of the areas where the film is unclear. The film is suggesting that the apocalypse suggested in the title is the arrival of European culture (which we see at the end of the film in the form of Spanish ships). This places the action of the film circa the early 1500s, yet the centers of lowland Maya culture went into decline and were abandoned much earlier—in the 8th and 9th century.
Oh, your know, I just thought about something else. The Mayans predicted things like years and events taking place where the end of the world would come about. I don’t know. That just came to my mind. Maybe they are, in a way, expecting something like the Europeans coming to their land. If my knowledge of history from that era is right and I do not know a lot concerning that time to some degree, perhaps it’s about the Mayan’s predicting of their gods coming to visit their land, like when they thought the Europeans when they first arrived were gods. Just a guess.
I think trying to find a larger meaning to the movie drags it down. Viewed as an adventure film, “Apocalyto” is nearly perfect. The movie is played out on a human level, but comes across as epic thanks to incredible set pieces and beautiful locales. The temples and jungle are always shown from very human vantage points and that adds to the grandeur. Aerial shots, I feel, detract from the epic feel of film by minimizing something grand. It is more impressive to look up at a skyscraper than to fly over one. Additionally, the attention to detail and practical effects gives this movie a timeless feel. “Apocalyto” is a throwback to the golden age of filmmaking. I hope Gibson gets to keep directing. His movies are nearly flawless.
-The Mayans predicted things like years and events taking place where the end of the world would come about.-
Actually that’s an old misunderstanding of the Maya long count calender and the Maya concept of time. The “doomsday date” (a little more than one year from now, by the way) is just the end of the 13th b’ak’tun, which will be followed by the start of the 14th b’ak’tun.
Hey, also, could you all humor and use the following convention:
The people = Maya
The languages spoken by the Maya people = Mayan
@Hal
I don’t disagree with the interpretations you’ve been throwing out, but I wonder if there is something deeper. For example, something about the way we can’t escape fate…but that sounds pretty lame, too. :) Let me think about it more.
@Matt
I’m more concerned with the accuracy of details that are in the film, rather than the details that were not included—unless not including these details created mislead perceptions that weakened what the film was about.
I think the mixing events in history is a litte more problematic, but if the film’s main point is that we should be wary about the end of our civilization (a disappointing explanation—and one of the reasons I often don’t put much stock into a filmmaker’s take on her film) then I’m not sure if those historical inaccuracies are really pertinent (or am I being too callous and too easy on Gibson)?
More importantly, did you spot Waldo?
-I’m not sure if those historical inaccuracies are really pertinent-
That’s the way I look at it—the impetus of the film was the idea to make a film about the “beginning of the end” of a society (which, metaphorically, is understood to be our own), and the Maya culture elements only came up as a way to flesh out this concept, so in some sense, it’s not really “about” the Maya. But it’s certainly more accurate regarding certain aspects of the culture than, say, Kings of the Sun.
Okay, this seems significantly less documented, so maybe it’s a hoax on the part of the uploader, but still…this is just WEIRD!
Eh, I’m not so sure it would qualify as “underrated.” I think it was alright, not terrible, not great. There were some things I liked about it, some I didn’t. Overall though, it’s probably Gibson’s best directed film – but that doesn’t make it a masterpiece. It’s alright for what it is.
Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting this is a masterpiece. But I think it’s way better than I expected, and I also don’t recall this film getting much positive press.
Its Gibson’s best fillm, although it is a remake of “The Naked Runner”.
It is better than most films coming out today, even if its not a masterpiece, or chronologically or historically accurate-but what work of art really is?
“It is better than most films coming out today”
Sure it is…Apocalypto, a slasher of sexist proportions, providing us with a grandiose spectacle of blooming jungles, teaching us an indigenous culture when any encyclopedia does a better job than mister Mel and amidst all this mess, prophecies and the imminent downfall from the conquistadors. For what it’s worth and for all the bickering Braveheart gets, it definitely isn’t that pompous and empty as Apocalypto is.
Anyone who remotely thinks Gibson is a capable director, I pity all those amazing directors who aren’t widely known yet. Better than most films today? Whoever said that hasn’t search enough or at all.
Man, that’s a big soapbox
It’s been a couple of years since I saw Apocalypto, but I do remember thinking that it was the best silent movie since City Lights. This movie had so little dialogue! And then I began to think back on some of Gibson’s other films – Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ – and remembering that Gibson’s strength as a director is in his broad gestures, BIG movies; movies rely on primal human emotions and experiences to the point where not much dialogue is needed.
That said, I didn’t enjoy the movie much at all. Gibson’s claim that it was about our civilization only made the movie seem more cheezy than it already was. Gibson has the will and he has a fierce sense of imagery, but his movies lack any compelling content. I could forgive that if his movies were any fun.
@Nathan M
As a kind of action-adventure-suspense, I thought it was well-done and I enjoyed it on that level. The film does a good job of pulling you into it and taking you a long for a ride. It also does a good job of recreating this world. These are other ways the film is like some of these old Hollywood spectacles. So, I guess in this way I found the film entertaining.
What do you think Gibson’s interest is in primal violence? There’s a savagery in this film (as well as the others you mention) that I found disturbing and tough to watch—not just the scenes of human sacrifice, but the way the villagers were captured and taken away. I tend to feel like there’s a larger point for showing these type of scenes, but I haven’t put my finger on it yet.
The idea that this supposed to be about our civilization—specifically a warning—lessens my opinion of the film.
I think Gibson’s always tried to convey the base nature of man. Man, when stripped down to his core, is self-destructive, and you can see how Gibson chooses (and, at times, writes) his projects: his character in Lethal Weapon, the portrayal of humanity in The Passion, his character in Payback, his character in Edge of Darkness, the Mad Max series, The Man Without a Face, and then in Apocalypto – the list goes on. It’s really just a detail that religion is inevitably involved as I’m sure there’s also some kind of religious undertone he’s trying to communicate. It’s a skeptical worldview he has and, when used in the wrong context, can become a self-inflicted wound. Perhaps that’s ironic.
@ DECKARD CROIX
“I think Gibson’s always tried to convey the base nature of man”
I don’t think he needs to make a film to do that
no, it says more about Mel than about Mayan society.
. . .
the screenwriter of this is attached to an adaptation of Aldis Huxley’s Brave New World
to be directed by Ridley Scott
any thoughts?
@Deck
I think he’s trying to do something more than “portraying the base nature of man.” Or he has a reason and interest in depicting it in a savage way. Btw, I don’t know if I agree with lumping all those films together as Gibson didn’t direct all of them. The ones he did direct—Braveheart, The Passion and Apocalypto have this element of savage violence, while some of the others don’t (i.e. Lethal Weapon—it’s violent, but not in the same sort of graphic way).
-Or he has a reason and interest in depicting it in a savage way-
Fundamentalism?
@Matt
Not sure about the connection, Matt. Are you saying that fundamentalists have a penchant for violence? Is Gibson a “fundamentalist?”
pretty much a remake of the naked prey
@ Jason Miller So the screenwriter of Apocalypto is set to write the script of Brave New World to be directed by Ridley Scott? That should be exciting! When’s it set to come out?
-Are you saying that fundamentalists have a penchant for violence?-
Yes.
-Is Gibson a “fundamentalist?”-
Probably depends on how you define the concept. Is a Catholic who insists on a all-pre-Vatican II Latin mass a fundamentalist?
He once said: “There is no salvation for those outside the Church . . . I believe it. . . . Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She’s a much better person than I am. Honestly. She’s, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make it, she’s better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.”
Essentially, I see “fundamentalism” as religion practiced in a militantly anti-modern content. Gibson’s stated beliefs qualify, I’d say, as anti-modern, and I think it could be argued that, particularly in Braveheart, Passion, and Apocalypto (and, to a lesser extent, even The Man Without a Face), with their fascination with violence, persecution, and the past, Gibson’s working in a form of aesthetic fundamentalism.
Jazzaloha
I just saw this over the weekend, and to my surprise, I liked it quite a bit. I went into the film with pretty low expectations and the film surprised me on several levels. For one thing, it did a good job of holding my attention. Also, the chase sequences were quite effective and satisfying. For another thing, I liked the way Gibson tried to recreate this Mayan world. The fact that he used real sets and extras (complete with costumes, which I thought looked good) instead of relying on a lot of cgi only added to the film’s appeal. As far as an action-adventure type of film, this is a really good one.
I’m wondering what others think of it—especially the historical and cultural accuracy of the Mayans.