ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Post-Apocalypto vision

Posted: Friday, December 08, 2006 7:20 PM by Alan Boyle


Touchstone Pictures
Warriors advance through the jungle in Mel Gibson's Maya movie "Apocalypto."

There’s plenty to argue about in Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto" – and we’re not just talking about the actor/director’s bad behavior and controversial views. Anthropologists and modern-day Mayans are arguing about how much truth there is in Gibson’s gripping, violent tale of an ancient civilization on the brink.

The setting for Gibson's movie of a Mayan on the run is late Postclassic Maya society - or to be more precise, a branch of that society on the Yucatan Peninsula around the year 1510, just before the Spanish conquest began. It's a jungle adventure story that depicts brutal raids and human sacrifices - a gorefest that University of Miami anthropologist Traci Ardren called "sad and ultimately pornographic."

It's not that the film is a stinker: Even its harshest critics say it's well-done ... as a hyperviolent, totally fictional action movie. And they acknowledge that human sacrifice was part of the deal for the ancient Maya. But they're worried that Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto" will give audiences a warped view of a culture that has suffered much over the past few hundred years.

"That movie gives you as much an idea of Maya civilization as ... I don't know, think of a really violent movie, an Oliver Stone movie, and that's supposed to give you an idea of the United States," said Elin Danien, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology who wrote a critical review of the film. "Actually, it gives you less of an idea. He has no context, no explanation, no understanding. He simply creates violent scenes."

In a way, "Apocalypto" serves as a mirror for those familiar with Maya history, and reflects the debate over whether indigenous peoples were noble savages or just plain savages.

"The Maya created a civilization that survived for well over 1,000 years in an environment that was not the most hospitable," Danien told me. "Instead of choosing to create a movie that was nothing but violence, it would have been very interesting to have a movie that showed the drama and courage of a people who created a mathematical system, who created a complex religious pantheon, who created a superb writing system - all of this in what Western civiliization would consider an environment that couldn't possibly allow this."

That might make for a fine National Geographic documentary - for example, "Dawn of the Maya." But would that bring 'em in at the multiplex? On the other side of the debate is Richard Hansen, an anthropologist at Idaho State University who served as a consultant for "Apocalypto."

Hansen doesn't think the violence is that far over the top. "I think it's far less than 'Lord of the Rings,'" he told me half-jokingly, "and it's based on a great deal of reality."

He said the chronicles of Postclassic Maya society support the movie's depiction of sacrificial rites: "The decapitation is there, the skull racks are there, the bodies rolling down the steps are there," he said.

In fact, there are even grislier parts - such as the fact that the Maya flayed the skins of their sacrificial victims. "The priest would wear the skin, for crying out loud," Hansen said. "We toned it way down."

Of course, an anthropologist wouldn't have made the same movie that Gibson did. "Some of this was done to make a statement, and Mel had the artistic license to do so," Hansen said.

Gibson's grand theme is laid out at the movie's very beginning, with a quotation from philosopher Will Durant that "a great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." This echoes the view that the Maya were done in principally by their overconsumption of shrinking resources and the resulting fragmentation of their society - with an extra push from climatic shifts and, of course, the invading Spaniards.

Hansen said the statement was aimed at American society as well as the turmoil in Iraq: A civilization grows when it unites and makes common cause, and breaks into pieces when it turns inward and emphasizes its divisions - for example, black vs. white, or Sunni vs. Shiite vs. Kurd.

"When we fragment into linguistic or political or ethnic groups, we are doing nothing but fragmenting our society," Hansen said, "and fragmentation is the death knell, because it can lead to social and economic disintegration."

Danien totally disagrees with the view, seemingly implied by the movie's ending, that the Maya did themselves in and that the Spanish colonizers brought enlightenment. On that point, Gibson made a mistake of historic proportions, she said.

"His view that the Maya were corrupt from within and were saved by the Spaniards is nonsense," she said. "The Spaniards destroyed everything they encountered. Yes, it's true that the cities of the Peten, of what we call the Classic Maya period, were abandoned in the 10th century. But there were cities in the Yucatan, there were cities on the Pacific coast of Guatemala that were going full blast when the Spaniards arrived."

Hansen told me that Gibson was "well aware of what a disaster" the Spanish invasion of the 1500s was for Maya culture. "What he's saying is that the new beginning isn't necessarily favorable here," he said.

Within a century, the Maya were ravaged by the diseases brought over by the Europeans, and enslaved by the conquistadors. Hansen hinted that Gibson may well be planning to delve into that side of the story if "Apocalypto" does well at the box office.

"It's designed to have a sequel if it's successful," Hansen said.

But that verdict will have to wait. For now, Hansen is most concerned about what the modern-day descendants of the ancient Maya think of the movie - and the verdict so far is mixed at best.

"I'm a little apprehensive about this, to be honest about it," said Hansen, who is continuing to conduct research on ancient Maya civilization in Guatemala. "We don't really like all of our closets examined."

On the other hand, he said, "If we can't look at the reality of the history, then what good is the history?"

Here are additional links about the Maya and the "Apocalypto" controversy:

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Anthropologists and archaeologists have a tendency to "gloss over" the human time span of a civilization to only capture the high points of its achievements. It is well known that the Meso-Americian cultures developed many sophisticated advances pertaining to written language and astrological charting, but for the "everyday" population I would surmise their main goal was survival. Having been to most ancient cities in this region, they all speak of violence - their surviving written language, architecture, frescos and objects appear to have been created solely to record it. I have yet to see any of the forementioned areas record how the general population was feeling or doing. The presence of ball-courts in every city, with wall niches for the head of the loser's team, are dominant within main plazas near the temples. These cultures, for all their advancements, were brutal. Mel Gibson's APOCALYPTO focuses on the near-end of a great time span - weeks instead of the anthropologists'/archaeologists' cultural span of 1,000 years - and the relationship of the "everyday" illierate farmer, still eking out a basic livelihood, in relation to a small, "literate," blood-driven ruling class. Gibson's film is a piercing "split-second" look at class struggles and their differences that clash as the momentum of "advance" ideas (good or bad) come into play. We have read about it through out history - so why, now, are the anthropologists and archaeologists being so sacrosanct about the visual sense of the history they are writing?
hello! it's a Movie! Get off Mel's back already! get over it. i can't wait to see it! sounds great.
Oh, please! Mel hit the nail square on the head and you all darned well know it. Too bad if you and the rest of society can't stand to look truth in the face. Maybe if our society could bring itself to do so, we might yet have some faint hope of maitaining our own civilization. Mr. Gibson earns my high praise for his incredible courage and astonishing talent.
"totally fictional action movie".. that's the point.. it's a Hollywood movie.. If an audience member leaves with the impression that the Mayan society (or any society) is ALL bad or ALL good based on a single Hollywood film.. then why should we value that audience members' uninformed opinion or attitude on that culture.. the critics of "Apocalypto"'s (social message)are basically parroting the usual politically correct mantra, which is that Native Americans shouldn't be depicted as anything other than noble and innocent victims of Euopean conquest.. instead of being shown as human beings.
I saw the movie this evening and thought it was great. Best I've seen for a couple years. I didn't like the ending because I thought the Mayan civilization was well over before the Spanish arrived. Then I read the above article about the sects that survived until then. Mel Gibson is the premier film maker of our age, like him or not.
From our point in history looking back, Mayan life, Mayan ritual looks brutal. But not necessarily so from their point in history. They simply had a different understanding of life and of death, of purpose and meaning. Unlike Western civilization, death of the body is not something every culture loathes or fears. Indeed, it is a part of life.
It may be a good movie but I havent seen it yet.It seems these days no matter what you do in film or radio someone always gets offended.Im offended these people arent smart enough to find out its a movie.Those who have brains are smart enough to understand that and any publicity is good publicity,so before the film, Mayans were just a page in a book,brought to light in any form,investigations from the curious will reopen the book of their history instead of a dusty shelf.I think we are dumbing down as a society with anyone up in arms over anything you do.Offended yet? Good!Smarten up please!
The movie was very, very good. The Mayans were around -- and successful -- long before the Aztecs in Central Mexico and the Incas in Peru. I think the end of the movie shows just why there is still a Mayan culture today. Any Mayan villagers who survived simply slipped back into the forest -- the forest they knew and loved. The Aztecs and the Incas were destroyed by the Spanish invasion. Not the Mayans. Did any of the critics in the article above actually SEE the movie? P.S. I'm a female who cannot watch the entire movie Braveheart because of the violence, but loved The Patriot. This was more on the lines of The Patriot. The violence was there, but that certainly wasn't the entire movie.
Has Mel been forgiven for slipping and speaking the inconvenient truth in a weak, alcohol-tinged moment? All you had to do was see his appearance on Jay Leno and the huge, near standing ovation response of the audience. I've seen all his movies and will make a point to continue seeing them.
Right, its a MOVIE. And a fantastic movie at that. I don't know why there's this whole debate about all of these Mayan things- its was a movie about the hero's journey. If the hero isn't faced with impossible horrific odds, then there isn't hard conflict. It was a movie about mythology- it wasn't on the history channel. Go see this movie if you want ENTERTAINMENT not an EDUCATION. It really is an incredible movie- easily the best I've seen all year. If you care to learn about the Mayan society, read a book then you can make your own decisions about it.
Fiction is fiction, Hollywood loves sensationalism, when actually the Mayans were very docile, spiritual, math experts. Their major contribution was overlooked in this movie, as they prophesied through the Mayan Long Count the beginning of the Apocalypse where their calendars end on 12/21/12. Censorship of this important event shows how the government controls what we see. You need only to look up the Georgia Guide Stones to understand what the Mayans truly intended.
"the Maya were ravaged by the diseases brought over by the Europeans". The way in which such statements are presented as fact is irresponsible in light of actual research- which provides sufficient evidence to downgrade the concept to simply a theory, at best, and probably nothing more than a myth. That may be good enough for Creationists (and kneejerk self-hating descendants of colonial people), but those interested in verifiable truth may want to be more specific in their language.
The making of a good film is not a simple task. Mel got descendants who walked the walk and talked the talk. Like it or not, it seems accurate to me.

I don't know why some parts of the media have started to act like such bigots about Mel Gibson. He is one of the most talented actors/directors of our time. This movie like many others is a great example of the man's talent and the gift that he has for entertaining us. So give this nonsense and enjoy the movie. Whatever he said about Jews and stuff is no big deal.People say/do foolish things when the are drunk. So pro-Jew media leave him alone.

Mel ROCKS!!

neltiliztli ixcococ tlacayectli neltiliztli, tehuantin yoliliztli
I think Mel is drawing good similarity between the Mayans and America. America has already been destroyed from within by Liberal ideology. And the Spaniards (terrorists) are here.
This film is more racist than Mel Gibson's anti-Semistic remarks which everyone says they will not tolerate. This movie is so racist, the problem is that the white culture doesn't even see it. The irony being that perhaps the Mayans have once again shown their wisdom, since this film and its maker do not portray them but ourselves and our own violence. Although the Native Peoples should not be portrayed as Noble, nor should they be betrayed as savages--that is such an old conquest imperialistic model. But hey enjoy your violence-filled feast, may it fill you up with what you need.

"Instead of choosing to create a movie that was nothing but violence, it would have been very interesting to have a movie that showed the drama and courage of a people who created a mathematical system, who created a complex religious pantheon, who created a superb writing system"

yeah, that is what I want to see a movie about; the birth of a mathematical system. Woo hoo!! EXCITEMENT!!!

Mel Gibson is a raving anti-semite.  I want to be entertained as much as the next person when watching a movie, but knowing what we know now - when we spend our money at the movie theatre this season, aren't we in a way supporting this guy and his crazy world view by seeing this one?  Boycott Mel Gibson.  I don't care if this movie is the best thing since Star Wars.  I will not even rent "Mel Gibson's Apocalypto."

PS someone tell Mr. Gibson that including an anti-semite's name in any movie title is bad for ticket sales

Art is intended to raise one's thinking above a single concept. History needs to be disected to gain an understanding on how to mold future societies that will rise. Movie making is just one process. I just hope someone will do a movie on the political culture of the United States, and leave no stone uncovered.
The only reason why people are concerned with this movie is because there is a large group of Guatemalan immigrants (both legal and illegal) here in the United States. Otherwise, no one would care. When movies are made about Nazi Germany, they are historically accurate and gruesome at the same time...to a far greater degree than Mel Gibson's depiction of the Mayan culture.
By the way, I *think* the comment from our Aztlan friend above is Nahuatl for "Sad truth, virtuous truth - this is our life." But I could be wrong. Any Nahuatl-speakers out there?
I do not know from where you all people get the idea that this is a great movie. all I saw was degradation of a great civilization, I did not see any of the great pyramids, i did not see any of the great economic power the maya were. nor any of the great astronomical or mathematical advances they had, or any of the social structure of the maya, All I saw were barbaric hunters, and lots of blood, very distorted and shameful portrait of a great civilization. i regret paying the admission price
How come there's so much focus on how 'violent' Mel Gibson's movies are, but no mention when all the other violent film directors out there come out with their films? Typical. Go Mel!
THOSE WHO FORGET THE PAST ARE DOOMED TO RELIVE IT A THOUGHT PROVOKING MOVIE.
The movie is also a statement about preserving our environment and natural resources. Man only takes and takes and when finally the world has no more to give, what is to become of man?
My wife and I saw the movie and loved it. Country boy with a good heart manages to outwit the evil city dwellers who would do him harm. A classic tale well told, but not a documentary any more than a Clint Eastwood movie tells you all you need to know about 19th century America. One person's story at one place at one time. Violent? Yes, but while the Spaniards were no saints, perhaps a little reminding as to why they reacted so strongly against the Aztecs and Mayans is not such a bad thing.
I can see a movie being made about Moslem extremists, and critics decrying it because the movie doesn't inform the viewer of the great accomplishments of Islamic culture. Critics who think that any movie maker should show any culture in this or that light, or that a movie should have included this or mentioned that, should make their own movies. Any movie that does not purport to be an objective presentation of history is merely a story. Movie makers tell their own stories, not anyone else's. Get over it.

I think a lot of people are missing the point when they see the arrival of the Spanish as 'the good guys' showing up to restore law, order and decency (possibly alluding, as has been suggested, to the 'deus ex machina' ending of 'Lord of the Flies' where grown-ups arrive to 'stop the kids from fighting').

In the world of Apocalypto, the Spanish are the ones who have come to take the Mayans down, fully in the sense of the quotation at the beginning of the movie. 'Apocalypse' as a word has to do with endings, not beginnings.

Jaguar Paw refuses contact with them for his 'new beginning'. The Spanish are not a 'new beginning', just a force to obliterate decadence.' Just part of a cycle.

So I think that critics who have questioned the cohesiveness of the film merely haven't taken the time to 'get it'. C'mon folks - anyone can see that, beside his abilities as an artistic director and storyteller, Mel Gibson is also an intelligent and thoughtful individual. Whatever his faults and flaws might be.

 

I HAVE STUDIED THE INCA, MAYA, AND THE AZTEC CULTURES FOR 40+ YEARS AS A READING-HOBBY. THIS MOVIE SEEMS TO ME TO HAVE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD SO TO SPEAK. THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE BLOODTHIRSTY BEHAVIOR PORTRAYED FICTIONALLY IN THIS MOVIE. THE OPERATIVE WORD HERE IS FICTION. MEL GIBSON'S RECENT ALCOHOLIC, ANTI-SEMETIC RANTS HAVE VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A GOOD MOVIE. QUIBBLING ABOUT THE INACCURATE USE OF THE GREEK WORD FOR THE TITLE IS A WASTE OF TIME. THOSE WHO GIVE THIS MORE THAN A SENTENCE OR TWO ARE MISSING THE POINT...ON PURPOSE. CRITICISE THE FLIC ON IT'S MERITS OR LACK THEREOF. IS THIS A GOOD STORY, WELL TOLD? IF SO, SAY SO. THERE HAS BEEN PLENTY OF TIME TO RAKE MEL GIBSON OVER THE COALS FOR HIS PUBLIC STUPIDITY. IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE GOOD, EVEN GREAT ART, AND STILL BE AN ASSHOLE IN ONE'S PERSONAL LIFE. JUST GO SPEND SOME TIME AROUND THE MOVIE BUSINESS...YOU'LL SEE.
Wow! What a movie. It achieved exactly what a great action movie should - edge of the seat & hair raising scenes. I haven't been this affected since "The Killing Fields". While all the - so called - experts decide whether to provide their critical spin, you can't deny that this movie is compelling & gripping, and worth your every cent. Importantly, I walked away with both respect and disdain for the Mayan culture. Moveover, it gave my wife and I plenty of material for forthcoming conversations.

It's just a movie? Just entertainment?

The book 'The Turner Diaries'  is 'just a book' and fictional to boot yet it was a motivating factor for Timothy McVeigh.

The problem is too many people believe Hollywood and what they see on either the silver screen or on T.V. Hollywood has one objective and that is to make money. They don't care about facts or historical accuracy. Let's face it folks, sex and violence sells and stupid movies DO have an influence on the way people think.

I have yet to see the movie myself but plan to.

I wonder if the opinions of some would be such were the movie by Tarantino? ...or even Polanski? I'm sure that if Oliver Stone did it, people would love it.

What I gather from commentary is that the movie depicts but one side of a great civilization. It reflects on one aspect, not the whole picture. The movie is meant to tell the story it tells: nothing more nor less.

Ironically, many people who dwell on this are guilty of the same when thinking of their own society. People lose site of the big picture and this is what causes the downfall of a society.

OSCAR! I hope that Hollywood can get over itself enough to recognize that it has been outdone in just about every detail by this film. Excellent in every way!
Like the other guy said...it's a movie...not a documentary! How about finding out how much truth is in Michael Morons movies...?!
well I for one am glad that Mel stayed away from hollywoods need to cast caucasians as native americans! that's just ridiculous.- With an all native cast and still with all it's inaccuracies what a great film.- very realistic yet entertaining in it's true language and form, or at least as close to as you can get in Hollywood.
If the Maya were such brilliant, docile, intellectualy curious saints, as many people on this discussion have suggested, then why did they die out? It seems that you people are missing the point. This movie was about the decay of a civilization, not about a civilization at its peak. And just remember, Braveheart depicted Scots in a much more barbaric light than anyone had seen up to that point as well.

I saw the movie yesterday and agree with the comments about violence reaching the level of pornography.  In fact, I believe the very same film could have been made with less hyper-realism resulting in a more moving film.  My complaint isn't so much with the sacrificial scenes but with the slow motion oozing of blood and guts, the closeup of spirting blood from a man's head and such.  No witness to that kind of scene would have taken in all of the gore that was shown.

The quotation at the beginning of the film is not just a comment on the Mayan religious practices, but also on the society that demands such gore for cinematic entertainment.  It also condemns the interest of film makers such as Gibson in producing this kind of show.

Also, many of the images surrounding the sacrificial moments were cliches.  The fat princeling and the self-absorbed queen/princess were straight out of Saturday morning Tarzan movies.  Was this creative quality? I think not.  But it speaks volumes about Mel Gibson's depraved soul.  He has a thirst for torture and gore and uses legitimate historical topics to justify wallowing in it.  I doubt he could make a decent film without violence.

The movies by Mel Gibson are simply not according to the best and latest scholarship and differ in many significant and demonstrable ways. I would think a major film undertaking of either the crucifixion of Jesus and the Mayan society would have chosen instead to follow what is in the best and most reliable scholarship. The shame of it all is this is likely to result in more ignorance than anything else.
Guillermo Fregozo of N. Hollywood CA appears to have analyzed the film quite adequately. Are not most of Gibson's films rather violent, superficial, and tabloid-esque renditions aimed more at lower brain stem functioning audiences than in the accurate elucidation of history?
I am dismayed by National Geographic's on-line comments in relation Gibson's new film, because they clearly indicate that they had not seen the film before making their hasty comments. Gibson clearly acknowledges, and visualizes, the central GREEN issues that "history" tells us were some of the key components in the demise of these Mesoamerican cultures - deforestation and draught. He shows deforestation as trees tumble and the landscape before the farmers fields have been stripped of all trees; he shows that the population surrounding the temple complex are farmers as we trod their dry fields, dead plants and starving humans. Because of a draught, with fields of dead corn stalks (interestingly behind an unfinished ball-court which Jaguar Paw, et al, have to run through), the complex's small ruling class, in near demise and trying to rebuild its glory, needs sacrificial bodies - hence to the jungle - beyond the complex and its supporting microstructure. Gibson clearly shows the greed, decadence and separation of the inbred ruling class in relation to the lower-class farming communities who have put themselves in abusive servitude. In this film, Gibson has woven an incredible story that meshes four society levels at the point of major cultural confrontation - the "illiterate" GREEN jungle/hunter, the "illiterate" domestic/farmer, the "literate," blood-driven ruling class, and the "literate," religious Spanish. Where history went from there is similar to where we are today - ecological, social and political deterioation. Gibson's piercing two-hour glance has cut through centuries of class struggles, showing it filled with human caring, wit and savage brutality.

Gibson, unfortunately, has the attitude that one should never let the facts interfere with a good story.  See "Braveheart".  That was no compliment to William Wallace!

See his work for what it is.  Exploitation of history to make money.  The Maya did great things.  They had their faults, at least in our eyes, in theirs it was right.  Check out the Toltec, Aztec and many others.

As for the Spanish, they had nothing to recommend them!

By the way, I won't be seeing the movie.  I swore off Gibson after seeing Braveheart.

Most Native Americans were killed off by smallpox.  I have never seen a "Cowboy and Indian" movie that shows this.  Is probably not photogenic enough for the Hollywood producers.  So they never mention it in their fake movies.  See the link for some history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

While the European and African populations were increasing, the Natives were dying off with just a few left by 1900.  Since that time, the majority of modern Natives are now part white.  A historian studying DNA told me most southwestern Natives have Spanish ancestry in their DNA.  This is due to the hundreds of years of slavery imposed by the Spaniards (or criollos/peninsulares as they called themselves) and the fact that tribes took captives at times (i.e. Quanah Parker's mother).  So even the Navajos are most likely part Spanish.  There aren't too many full-blooded Natives left.  They are from another time.

I think my Time-Life movie about the Mayans showed hieroglyphic depictions of drunken crowds engaged in the use of alcohol enemas. The film ventured to guess that this was a large representation of the degradation of their culture. ????  Any historians out there?
it was a good movie, not at all like had heard about, the gore,  the pornography, there was  nothing pornographic or gory about it, just good entertainment, two thumbs up for me
Kudos to the Melster for reminding us that the relatively peaceful society we live in today is far removed from the romantic vision of history we are used to viewing. If you want a really shocking movie, try filming a few of the atrocities that have occurred in the past decade. The list is long and varied including Central Africa and the Mideast for starters. The enormity of scale may have changed... but man's inhumanity hasn't.
First off, keep in mind this IS a movie and not intended to be a documentary. And what is the purpose of a movie after all? Duh, TO ENTERTAIN. If you want to LEARN about the Aztecs, go read a history book for crying out loud. Second, humans are so hypercritical. They don't mind their good actions mentioned or applauded, but don't you dare talk about their not-so-good-deeds. It's just not "PC" to do so! I'm sure that with a thorough research, you would find that every race/civilization has it's accomplishments and also it's less-than-proud-of moments. Yes, even America. Denial does not make them any less true or make them go away. Don't attack Mel just because 'Apocalypto' portrays a gruesome aspect of a society. If Ron Howard had made this film you wouldn't be seeing half this hoopla. Face it, the Aztecs DID sacrifice people for different reasons. Like it or not, it is a TRUE & HISTORICAL fact. Humanity just can't tolerate it's 'darkside' examined too closely. It does not like to admit that it does bad things. It only wants to acknowledge the 'good', and not the 'bad' or the 'ugly'. It is just not 'PC' to criticize anyone or anything even if it is true. To do so is to risk being called a 'racist'. We must only praise them even if it's not true. Too bad none of these critics have the intestinal fortitude to use the same standards they're using to bash Mel & the movie on other movies & people. Like I said, hypercrites!
I do not know where Danien got this viewpoint...."His view that the Maya were corrupt from within and were saved by the Spaniards is nonsense," ...In the movie, the ending was the arrival of the Spaniards, which to me tied with the opening statement in that this was the death knell for the Maya...the new beginning was Jaguar Paw taking his family further into the forest to try to start their own new life away from the decadence and destruction by the Spaniards.

An excellent movie. Forty years ago in elementary school, I did a school project on the ancient Indians of Central and South America. Very little was factually known by the general population about the cultures back then, and despite everything I've ever read since then, nothing can compare to Apocalypto's  conceptualization of this great society. Mel Gibson has brought to the big screen an incredible visualization of what might have been!

I take everything I see or read with a grain of salt, and encourage everyone else to do so likewise.

A stunningly spectacular presentation with all the prerequisite elements of a good story... life, death, love, greed, compassion.

Was the violence presented too graphically? Not at all. That's what violence is, graphic!

Realistic wounds have an impact all their own. Who after watching the movie can't imagine the horror of standing atop the ancient temple awaiting your turn on the sacrificial altar? Even a minor head wound can cause a "pulsing" effect such as witnessed in the movie. Watching life drain slowly away, one pulse after the next, has an impact all it's own.

Too much graphic violence? Probably so.

Despite that, I recommend this movie to anyone who has ever wondered what life in the ancient Meso America world may have looked like. The costumes and ornamentation, from jungle dweller to chieftain to priest was incredible. The depiction of the village and city is awesome!

My husband and I saw this movie yesterday. I have read the many responses and varied reactions posted here.

I am confused by those who feel the movie did not represent true and accurate "historical facts". Decade after decade archaeologist dig up more "historical facts" that add to our knowledge of ancient civilizations. But the issue of interruption of those facts seems to never be addressed. Opinions on ancient artifacts are varied. Can anyone actually present a TRUE and ACCURATE unbiased account of a long gone civilization? No! The more pieces of the puzzle the easier to view some of the scene, but we will never have all the pieces and be able to know all the facts to be certain that we have a TRUE and ACCURATE account.

That leads me to a comment on the "overly violent sacrifice" scenes. Those demanding TRUE and ACCURATE historical facts may find the depiction of a "true and accurate" human sacrifice a bit too much. Reading about Mayan sacrifices is one thing, the reality of 'seeing' it is another. And let us not forget that MANY ancient civilizations practiced human sacrifice. From now on when I read the words "human sacrifice" it will mean WAY more than just understanding the definition of the words written!

I saw the issues of deforestation, crop failure, climate change, poluted water, disease, starvation, forced labor, rich vs poor, and rural vs urban that were depicted. All these things are still with us today.

The main thing that I came out of the theater thinking was that the more things change, the more they stay the same. The scenes atop the pyramid spoke volumes to me. The rulers (political), the military (those sent to round up the captives), the religious (the one who performed the sacrifice to the gods), and scientists (the one who spoke at the eclipse) were all 'above' the people. It was NOT the group atop the pyramid nor their castes that physically built the pyramid stone by stone. It was the lower caste members of the society that made it possible for them to be 'above'. Are our lives any less at the mercy of politics, religion, military, and science? We still have rulers of countries that 'speak' for their populations, the military that wages wars on the orders of rulers, religious differences that causes conflict and sacrifice, and scientists that want to think they have answers. And of course, the 'people' are still building the 'pyramids' that they are elevated upon. (Think tax dollars here!)

We are a violent species that continues to "sacrifice" in many ways. We sacrifice our planet, its creatures, and our fellow humans daily on the altar of monetary gain, continuation of our life style, and progress. Yet everyday we put on our rose colored glasses and think of ourselves as "civilized" and beyond the "barbaric" history of our ancestors. Same story, different methods.

I don't care who wrote the script or who financed its production or who starred in the movie. It was more than entertainment to me. It made me really THINK about what was presented! That is a rare occurance upon leaving the theater as most movies are just a means of passing free time.

These are just my reactions and opinions. They are no more or no less than anyone else's reactions or opinions. Each person is an individual and will have varying reviews.



SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=19477

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google