APOCOLYPTO

[Lankypeters]

A friend remarks this morning that he won't see APOCOLYPTO "on principal." Isn't he really saying he won't see it "on prejudice." That is, Gibson's personal behavior prevents him from seeing the film. Is that not a prejudice that interferes with seeing or judging the work? Interesting that reviewers, many of them Jewish, remained objective about the film, giving it laudatory reviews.

 

I have to wonder if Gibson's homophobic rants prevent anyone from seeing his films "on principal" or if Eddie Murphy's vile remarks about gays will keep the crowds from DREAMGIRLS, which some reviewers are calling the picture of the year.

 

Can what we do be separate from what we are?

 

 

Lankypeters

[Guest DickHo]

"on principle"

[+ purplekow]

>"on principle"

As a long ago teacher reminded me the principal is your PAL

 

I will not see this movie on principle nor with my principal, as I have no desire to line the pockets of Mel Gibson. I have found his other movies have not lived up to the hype, but even if that were not the case, I wouldn't be going. You can't avoid bigotry, but you can pick your battles and then do what you can do.

I think that most of us make these decisions all the time. How can you explain the failure of Adolf Hitler Studios otherwise?

[jackhammer91406]

Hate to be so shallow, but young men in loin cloths trump principle for me. I will see it. heheh

 

Of course not just because it has near naked men, but more importantly, most critics agree it is a masterful film. I understand the desire of not wanting to line the pockets of a homophobic racist, but really, if you check carefully, many of the moguls in Hollywood's past had prejudice and homophobia. So we have been lining the pockets of homophobes, racists, deviates, and closet cases for years.

 

One of the reasons a movie of this type can even get made is because Gibson doesn't need the money, so he can make whatever movie he wants.

 

Make no mistake, I abhor his politics and racists beliefs. I do not believe for a minute that his contrition is real. But I will look past the man and judge the artist.

[Bilbo]

I won't be seeing this movie and it is on principal. While it is a part of it that Mel feels about me the way that he does, that's just a part of it. Any movie which has as much violence as I am lead to believe that this one has does not get my butt in a seat. Period. I vote, with my body, for happier, gentler movies which might lead to a happier, gentler world.

Maverick and I were just going over the ad from our favorite movie theater, and two of the movies on my list of three I'd most like to see were animated, Happy Feet and Flushed Away. The other one, Casino Royale, I am sure will have some violence in it, but, for some reason, I am comfortable with that. It may be that I believe the violence will be less graphic and real or it may be Mel's politics.

 

 

I am the same way with TV shows. You will rarely find me watching CSIs, but Numbers and NCIS appeal to me. I am a bit uncomfortable with the gore on NCIS, but I feel that the characterizations of the investigative team are more detailed and optomistic.

[Epigonos]

Not all critics have had good things to say about this film. Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times slammed it up one wall and down the next. Supposedly Gibson, with Apocolypto, is attempting to draw a parallel between Late Maya Society and contemporary American society. Apparently he believes that a society must be rotten and corrupt within before it can be conquered from without - an interesting point but not necessarily always the case. Turan feels that with Gibson’s constant emphasis on extreme, sadistic violence, in all of his films, he is more an influential part of the problems of current society rather than a voice for change.

Several historians, anthropologists, and archeologists who specialize in the Maya have also made a number of interesting comments in local newspapers. They commend the film for its accuracy regarding costumes and jewelry but point out that none of the pyramids in the Maya heartland are as large as those shown in the film. They also point out that though there are no records of severed heads rolling down the sides of pyramids it is possibly as a result of Aztec influence during the Late Maya Period. The Maya during the Classic Period did NOT practice human sacrifice on anywhere near the scale as the later Aztecs. This film is primarily a chase film and there is also no record of the Maya ever releasing prisoners so they could hunt them. Possible – yes, probable – who knows.

Now with this all said and done – I will probably see the film. First, out of simple curiosity because the period interests me and second, because, like jackhammer91406, I enjoy seeing men running around nearly naked.

[Luv2play]

Since you have decided to see the film maybe you could report back here with your views of it. If is has as much violence as I suspect, then I won't see it, despite my fondness for near-naked men. :-(

[Guest EWC]

And then some of us remember the time when we enjoyed seeing Mel running around half naked (or in the case of Gallipoli all naked) and are willing to overlook his politics, prejudices and tastes.

[fedssocr1]

are you really willing to overlook all of his many, many faults just because he appeared nude or almost nude in a movie 25 years ago? Honey there are plenty of good looking men appearing nude all over the place without Mel's brand of politics or personality.

[Guest EWC]

Never forget a spectacular ass.

[Epigonos]

Well I went to see Apocolypto” yesterday and recalling Luv2play’s request that I report back with my impressions here goes.

 

Yes it is violent but I was surprised that it was NOT even more so. Early in the film a Maya hunting party attacks the village of peaceful forest dwellers. The scene simply goes on and on and on but then I thought Steven Spielberg’s opening to “Private Ryan” went on too long also so judge by that. Yes the hearts of two sacrificial victims are show but it does not show the hearts being carved from the chest of the victims – frankly I almost expected to see that knowing Gibson’s love of that sort of thing. Yes two heads are seen rolling down the steps of a pyramid but at such a great distance that for all the audience can tell they might be balls.

 

More troublesome for me is the fact, that as usual, Gibson is unable to portray anything other than absolutes everything in his films is black or white, moral or immoral, good or bad. There is no middle ground in ANY of this man’s work. The British in “Braveheart” and “Patriot” were all bad and the Scots in the former and the Colonists in the latter all good. The Jews were all bad in “The Passion of the Christ”. Now in this one the Maya are all bad and the forest dwellers all good.

 

The costumes are indeed spectacular and although I had expected them to be more colorful I understand that they are presented correctly. The jewelry, most of which is turquoise, is magnificent. Color is really seen only in the masks and headdresses of some of the Maya priests and aristocrats. The geography of the film, however, is totally impossible. There are NO rivers or mountains in the Yucatan Peninsula. Well maybe you say the action took place somewhere else in the Maya heartland. That is not possible as the films ends with the arrival, by ship, of the Spanish Conquistadores and that could only have happened in the Yucatan – any mountains or rivers in Mayaland are simply too far from any coast.

 

The film is actually divided into two parts. The first part sets-up the second and is way, way, way too long. It simply seems to go on forever. The march of the captives from their forest village to the Maya city, for example, seems endless. The second half of the film is, in reality, a classic chase film and damn good.

 

Now is the film worth seeing. NO! The only cute guy running around in a loin cloth is the lead, Rudy Youngblood. In fact he is the only, fully developed character, in the film who is at all sympathetic. Still – nearly three hours to see just one cute, nearly nude, sympathetic guy ISN’T WORTH IT. Guys stay home and stick to your principles and know that you haven’t missed much

[jackhammer91406]

>Since you have decided to see the film maybe you could report

>back here with your views of it. If is has as much violence as

>I suspect, then I won't see it, despite my fondness for

>near-naked men. :-(

 

 

I saw the film this afternoon. Let me begin by saying that at the conclusion the audience applauded.

 

This film is very well made. The audience is caught up in the movie immediately. We are introduced to the main character Jaguar Paw as he and his neighbors chase a tapir through the rain forest. It is an action sequence that rings absolutely true (as does every thing in the film). This is a society of hunter-gatherers. We are introduced to the life in this village. It is primal and yet a true society, including the elder story teller by the fire at night telling a tale that resonates with meaning as well as entertaining the village. Gibson captures the life of this simple village in such an elemental way, that we are locked into these characters for the duration of their life, or the end of the film.

 

The Story moves on as a war party of Mayans raids the village for people to sacrifice to the gods in an effort to bring about an end to a drought. As the captives are marched through the jungle to the city, the horrors committed by the captors increase. When they pass through the outskirts of the city through a work camp, we begin to become aware that the price for civilization (buildings and discoveries) is paid for on the backs of the class that slaves away. It is a powerful indictment and Gibson explores many sociological themes as this without a heavy hand, but rather a deft touch.

 

As hard as I tried to keep noting the technical aspects of the film, I continued to get swept up in the action, story and the incredible performances of a cast of unknowns speaking a language not understood. The subtitles explain the dialogue, but the actors conveyed the meaning in such a realistic way, I could have understood the film without subtitles or even dialogue (which is minimal anyway).

 

You may by now have determined that I liked the film. Let me go one step further. I was knocked out by it. Gibson shows a mastery that surpasses his previous achievements in my mind.

 

The last third of the film is a foot chase sequence that is an edge-of-your-seat thrill ride. It is not like anything you have ever seen before.

 

Yes there is gore, although not to the degree I had been led to believe. Any slasher film has much more than this. When used, it was entirely appropriate.

 

Gibson weaves a fabric of violent history and pastoral beauty that continues to impact this viewer long after the projector has shut down.