I don't think much of Mel Gibson's ultra-literalist directorial sensibility (my main problem with "Passion of the Christ" is that it failed to engage on any symbolic, religious or mythological level), but this piece in the New York Times last week, by archaeologist Craig Childs, piqued my interest in seeing "Apocalypto." Childs sees it as a truer reflection of the historically violent -- and symbolically violent -- nature of Native American tribal life than the popular stereotype of American Indians as passive, stoic, peace-loving peoples. (And that stereotype developed, in part, as a corrective response to the savage portrayals of "Injuns" in so many American movie westerns).
Writes Childs (author of the forthcoming book, “House of Rain: Tracking a Vanished Civilization Across the American Southwest”):
Being told by screenwriters and archaeologists that their ancestors engaged in death cults tends to make many Native Americans uneasy. In Arizona, Hopi elders turn their eyes to the ground when they hear about their own past stained with overt brutality. The name Hopi means people of peace, which is what they strive to be. Meanwhile, excavators keep digging up evidence of cannibalism and ritualized violence among their ancestors.How do we rectify the age-old perception of noble and peaceful native America with the reality that at times violence was coordinated on a scale never before witnessed by humanity? The answer is simple. We don’t.
Prior to 1492 it was a complex cultural landscape with civilization ebbing and flowing, the spaces in between traversed by ancient lineages of hunters and gatherers. To the religious core of pre-Columbian Mayans, a beating heart ripped from someone’s chest was a thing of supreme sacredness and not prosaic violence.
If “Apocalypto” has a fault, it is not with its brutality, but with us in the audience who cringe, thinking the Mayans little more than a barbaric people. The fault lies in our misunderstanding of a complicated history, thinking we can lump a whole civilization into a single response and walk out of the movie saying, “That was disgusting.”
While it may be factually true that the Mayans performed human sacrifice as a sacred rite, that is not the truth of Apocalypto. I wouldn't be so quick to blame the audience, especially when the filmmaking leads it so eagerly towards the "That was disgusting" judgement. Gibson *wants* his audience to feel that the villains in the movie were barbaric monsters.
I had the same problem with The Passion of the Christ. Gibson stated in press releases that he wanted to convey the depth of Christ's forgiveness by showing the depth of his passion/suffering. And yet, the filmmaking depicts the centurions as brutal monsters who deserve reprisal. It stirs our outrage reflex. If the film doesn't forgive it's villains, how is the audience supposed to?
Gibson is a smart businessman - he tells us his films canonize the kind of values we *want* to have (mercy, selflessness, heroism), while actually pandering to our less-than-admirable traits (morbid fascination with violence, shallow moralizing, desire for revenge over justice).
It doesn't help that his films are seductively well made.
Nick's right. The tricky thing with a film like Passion of the Christ is that it has vision, without a doubt. On the flipside is the fact that Gibson is sick in the head.
but to us the act is disgusting. it's not an inauthentic statement for a modern movie goer to make, complicated history or not. just like that society considered a ripped out, beating heart to be a sacred object, our society considers it to be a monstrosity. for a modern movie patron to consider the act anything but disgusting (if that is in fact what he considers it to be) would be unfaithful to himself, whether his views are socially constructed, just as the mayans' views would be, or not.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to take Apocalypto at all seriously. Whether or not it "makes a statement" on savagery in Mayan history (Gibson admits to doing no research before writing the script) or even on the Iraq War (the intention), it's one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on any screen. I found myself laughing throughout the entire film to keep my intestines from strangling my brain.
Whether it's an hour-long (literally, I timed it) chase scene on foot in slow motion, an oddly out of place speech justifying human sacrifice to a crowd that's already cheering for it, the suggestion that Mayan women can't float in water, or the hero (a cruelly sadistic prankster) shouting his name repeatedly for no reason (to give only a few examples), Apocalypto failed to function on any level. Not only is its screenplay possibly the worst of the decade (suggesting that the conquistadors actually offerred the innocent Mayans "a new beginning"), but the digital photography and laughable special effects put it on par with a substandard SciFi Channel Original (Alien Apocalypse was much more entertaining). I expected the inexplicable mystery of a jungle but had to settle for a forest which felt more like a houseplant.
The film makes no mention of historical politics whatsoever, and if the audience lumps the entire civilization into a single response, it's because Gibson gives us no alternative within the film. It opens violently with the "good" Mayans, continues violently with the "bad" Mayans, and ends peacefully with Jaguar Paw's pursuers leaving him alone at the arrival of the Spaniards.
What does that violence symbolize? That Chistianity is the one true faith? Or that Gibson pays no attention to what he puts on the screen as long as it's bloody and draws dollars?
Matt Rosen,
What does that violence symbolize? You ask that question as if it's a taunt to anyone who likes the film. What does that violence symbolize, hm? Well let's take the question seriously for a moment. Most often an artist will try to find the truth in something. Other filmmakers do very much the same thing -- Scorcese with gangster films, Spielberg with war films. To show something that's historically accurate in a film, rather than something that's guarded by politically correct assertions that one walks away from High School with. And who cares if it's wrapped in a bow tie of entertainment -- isn't that what films do? Do they not entertain even while making a point? Even a pastor standing in front of his churchgoers will tell a joke to serve a point. You ask why a man would speak of the goods of human sacrifice to a crowd of people already begging for it. Have you been to a church service -- doesn't matter what religion or time period -- you will see exactly the same thing (minus the human sacrifice).
"That Christianity is the one true faith?" Speaking with just a little knowledge of histrionics, I seem to remember that the Spaniards didn't make everything bright and happy for the Natives.
Gibson made "The Passion of the Christ" for people who already knew and understood the story, why should he pander to an audience with this film? Gibson doesn't give you an alternative!? Do you want him to create something out of nothing, and smudge the truth he's trying to find in the subject matter? Perhaps there was no alternative? Wouldn't you say that's a point the film is trying to make?
It's fine if you didn't like the film, but to just blatantly disregard it on all levels and not give it any real thought as to what the artist was thinking is absurd.
I was more annoyed by the Families Are Good, Progress Is Bad messages Gibson felt compelled to continually whomp us over the head with in that film. (Look, we're sitting around the fire with our kids! Awww!)
Matt Rosen, you're right on. As soon as the lights came up, my SO turned around and said, "Why didn't she just float?"
Philip,
I think you misunderstand. I don't criticize Apocalypto for entertaining to make a point. My problem with it is its utter failure to do either.
Of course the conquistadors didn't make things better for the natives! But try taking the narrative at face value. Once the Spaniards arrive all the film's conflict is resolved, and from the viewer's perspective, all the violence stops.
The fact that a film doesn't conform to political correctness doesn't make it insightful (just look at Freddy Got Fingered). If Apocalypto is some sort of criticism about misrepresentation of Native American stereotypes, it functions on the same levels as an Armond White review, contradicting for the sake of contradicting without offering any real commentary at all.
Moreover, Gibson makes no claims to historical accuracy. Watching the film, it felt more like Oliver Stone was remaking El Topo on a camcorder than a realistic presentation of a culture. If there was some goal of historical documentation here, there might be some realization that a) clairvoyance was NOT a symptom of Plague, b) Mayans were among the most advanced astronomers in the world and would not likely be spooked by a solar eclipse, and c) the Mayan cities were abandoned hundreds of years before the conquistadors ever arrived.
Let's get something straight: I'm not against violent entertainment, I'm against bad movies. And Apocalypto ranks with the worst of em.
suggesting that the conquistadors actually offerred the innocent Mayans "a new beginning"
I was pretty ambivalent about Apocalypto; felt it was excellent craftsmanship in service to an intent that was murky at best. But I do have to take exception at this comment, and the further assertion that the movie in any way endorses any religion at all. In fact, I kind of wondered if Gibson's newly-acquired audience would understand or appreciate the statement being made about a religion turned parasitic and dogmatic killing a nation as stone dead as any plague or famine ever could.
It's a movie about a civilization dying. When that final shot of the conquistadors is shown, I thought -- as I believed I was intended to -- "well, that's it. They really are toast now." No crazy revisionism suggesting brutal imperialism was somehow a positive force in the Mayans' life. It was about their end, after all.
The rest of the criticisms sound relatively idiosyncratic, so I'll chalk that up to personal preference. I will note that Gibson shared screenwriting duties with someone who was quite knowledgable about Mayan life.
Matt,
You twist some of my points a little, but that's fine. Actually, I tried to make as few as possible, while asking questions to get some less anger induced thoughts out of you.
Here I am viewing one movie through another, even though it's something I said I rarely do. Consider Gibson as a filmmaker. Look at his other opus "Passion of the Christ". (Again I'm going to ask some questions.) Do you think Jesus created a table with four legs? Is that historical accuracy? Or something created to say something about the character and his innovative thoughts when faced with the laws of the generation before him? To me the scene was still silly, and didn't quite work. But I understood what Mel was going for.
The one thing you don't get at is what you think Mel is trying to do with this film? What he's trying to say? All messages should be taken seriously, whether you agree with the packaging or not. If you disregard something completely it becomes that much more dangerous. I'm wondering what you thought the point of the movie was - not what the story did poorly, or how bad the special effects were... you seem to have a lot of opinions, but they don't matter to me without that foundation of "purpose of filmmaker included" (a fun label that should be put on DVD boxes perhaps).
In the original post Childes talks about what he thought the director was trying to do - to portray a society as it may have actually been. He tries to understand what the filmmaker was trying to represent. I've seen films with the worst special effects and still walked away loving it because of what the film was trying to say.
I'm don't mean to chide but I'm curious as you seem to feel so strongly about the film.
I cannot shake the gut feeling (and I'm not the only person to feel this way) that all the lofty "intentions" and symbols are merely excuses for Gibson and the audience to indulge in their primal, physical satisfaction for their sadomasochist urges. Modern social values prohibit the same kind of public activities that satisfied the blood thirst of the Romans (live violence as entertainment) and the Mayans (violence as religious ceremony), yet the physically ingrained human tendencies are still there. And most men do not get to satisfy it in real war combat nowadays. The substitute, then, has to be nearly realistic, cleverly made movies dressed up in acceptable excuses of morality. The horror genre in which people are tortured and hacked into pieces are at least not as hypocritical as Mr. Gibson's disguise, even though he seems to believe it himself.
Ken,
I definitely see where you're coming from. I tend from time to time to read too deeply into small details. One of the openening scenes features a group of people wandering through the jungle. The following exchange takes place:
"Our lands have been squandered. We are looking for a new beginning."
"Your lands were squandered!?"
"Yes. We are looking for a new beginning."
(Reminds me a lot of "There is no way out of here. It'll be dark soon. There is no way out of here." from Manos)
In the last scene, Jaguar Paw & his family watch the Europeans land. The final line is something like "We will go into the jungle and find a new beginning."
In terms of just the narrative of the film, the arrival of the conquistadors means freedom for Jaguar Paw and an end to the relentless violence we'd witnessed throughout. His captors are presumably killed or enslaved, maybe they lead the army to the Mayan cities believing them to be deities. We don't know. The camera cuts away so Jaguar Paw & his family can look peaceful in jungle.
Philip,
My problem with the film is not its lack of historical accuracy, but since this is a response to an article praising the film for being some sort of factual expose on Native American savagery or contrarian criticism of previous portrayals, it doesn't work.
Gibson's intention was to make a statement about the current political climate in the US. I got this impression when I first saw the film, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out what statement he was trying to make. Based on the quote which opens the film (something along the lines of "For a culture to fall, it must be weakened by conflict within.") and the way the psychic Plague girl blames the fall of the Mayans on Jaguar Paw's escape, one might be led to believe that it argues against dissent. But the movie clearly doesn't sympathize with the tyrranical preists in the city either.
I later read that Gibson intended the sacrificial candidates to represent the soldiers being needlessly killed in Iraq while the threat of terrorism goes unabaded. I like this view and think it works. I can respect Gibson's intentions in this case. But you can go into a film with clear artistic intentions and still fail miserably, which I think happened here on an almost unparalleled scale.
"In the last scene, Jaguar Paw & his family watch the Europeans land. The final line is something like "We will go into the jungle and find a new beginning."
In terms of just the narrative of the film, the arrival of the conquistadors means freedom for Jaguar Paw and an end to the relentless violence we'd witnessed throughout. His captors are presumably killed or enslaved, maybe they lead the army to the Mayan cities believing them to be deities. We don't know. The camera cuts away so Jaguar Paw & his family can look peaceful in jungle."
I can see where you're coming from, but I tend to view these exchanges as I stated before. I think Jaguar Paw knows instinctively that, after witnessing his civilization's decay from within, he is now witnessing its extermination from without. (This reinforces the opening quote, whose exact wording I forget at the moment, but it was something along those lines. One could say Apocalypto is nothing but an elaboration on that quote.)
Essentially, JP and family escape, leaving behind both their own dying world and the murderous centuries to come from the Europeans. It's a new life for them, even if the Mayans are screwed.
For me, "escape" really is the key word. JP and family escape the fate of the rest of their nation. They escape the gears of history... at least for a time. As you say, we never really know.
Ken,
And I wonder if we really have to know.