Apocalypto - Roll Tide presents his review

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rolltide
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rolltide

Guest
Well, at long last, I’ve been able to see Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto. For those of you who don’t know, I’m a Latin American historian by profession, and several people on here have asked me for my insight into the movie. So, here it goes…

First, this is quite a piece of filmmaking, and it’s going to be divisive. It’s the kind of movie that you’ll either be seriously impressed with, or you’ll hate it. I can honestly say it’s unlike pretty much anything that’s ever been shown on screen before, and that’s pretty rare. There’s never been a movie dealing with this subject matter. It’s also shot in an exceptionally interesting manner. The imagry is gorgeous, and the scenes are set up so well, that even though the movie is entirely in the Yucatec Mayan language, it doesn’t matter. In fact, you wouldn’t even need the subtitles to follow along with this movie. The story tells itself visually, and it’s absolutely clear what’s going on. That said, the subtitles are intriguing, and a couple of the translations are particularly funny in and of themselves.

Second, and let me emphasize this, this is a supremely violent movie. HOWEVER… and this is a big however… none of that violence is gratuitous. Each incident of violence has a purpose and a place, whether that be images of war, or the brutatlity of human sacrifice. The story could not be told without it. In fact, the movie features a very interesting dichotomy, in that we become so sympathetic to the main characters, even as the civilization itself is repulsive in many aspects. Just to be clear on this, I’m going to give you some examples of the type of violence witnessed in this film. If you don’t think you can handle it, you should stay away. It includes:

Human sacrifice, including graphic, closeup images of human hearts, still beating, being cut out of live, conscious humans, who are then decapitated. Their heads and bodies are then thrown down the stairs of the pyramids, and the citizens, including infants, are anointed in the victim’s blood.

Bloodletting rituals, involving cutting open the hand.

Brutal hand-to-hand combat, including a man clubbed in the head so viciously that blood spurts in huge gushing blasts from his temple.

The killing of animals, including tapirs, monkeys, and a jaguar.

This is a movie with a message. That message is, “A civilization with no respect for life or the environment is doomed to eventual destruction”. A really well-done aspect of this movie is that it covers all of the bases historically about why the Maya may have collapsed. We see warfare, drought, insect plagues, disease, overpopulation, and environmental degredation. None is forwarded as the absolute cause, but all are ominous, and it doesn’t take a historian to see that each of these could have been a serious threat to the Maya. It is not the Classic Maya civilization as many have thought, however. What we see on film is the Post-Classic Maya. Now, for most of you, this makes no difference. However, this is a major point. The Classic Maya, although they practiced human sacrifice, did so on a much smaller scale, were spread out over a much larger area, and had a trade network that extended from Arizona to Panama. Had Mel Gibson decided to pursue this period, the more positive aspects of Maya culture may have stood out, such as their calender, which was more accurate than our own, the invention of chocolate, the number 0, their writing system, and their impressive construction. As it is, we see all of that, but it’s all overshadowed by the human sacrifice. Sacrifice became more prominent during the Post-Classic revival, as the Toltecs from the city of Tula, in east-central Mexico, were pushed out by the Aztecs and moved into Maya lands, bringing with them the increased thirst for blood.

The Post-Classic Maya also lived ONLY in the Yucatan peninsula That’s problematic, because the film is shot near Veracruz. Anyone who’s ever been to Cancun, Cozumel, or the Yucatan peninsula knows that it’s extremely flat, and that there are almost no rivers. The scenery in this movie includes rivers and hills. To be fair, this is a minor quibble, as there are areas of the southern Yucatan and Guatamala that look just like this, where Classic Maya lived. You would have found Maya in areas like that, just not between 1100-1500. This film has to be set between 1400-1520, due to some of the specific things we see in the film.

continued…
 
The plot follows a small band of Maya that live in a small village far out in the jungle. It is clear they have never come in contact with the larger cities. In my eyes, this seems somewhat odd, because even in the Post-Classic period, it’d be pretty hard not to know about these major cities. Nevertheless, we identify with the tribe right away. BTW, I’ll add at this point that there is a fair amount of nudity in this movie, but of the “naked Indian” variety, not of the sexual kind. If you weren’t bothered by the nudity in “The Mission”, then this is no worse.

We come to see the Maya world though the eyes of our hero, Jaguar Paw, who has a both a wife and (an often amusing) mother-in-law who desperately wants grandchildren. Eventually, he has a son, and his wife becomes pregnant with a second child. It is after a hunting trip that we begin to learn something ominous. Other Maya are showing up, clearly afraid, saying only that their lands have been ravaged, and that they should “run”.

Soon thereafter, the village is attacked by a raiding party of Maya from a nearby metropolis. (Remember, that Maya cities could sometimes reach 50,000-100,000 people or more.) They are looking to capture the tribe alive to use as human sacrifices and as slaves. Suffice it to say that the village is decimated, but Jaguar Paw manages to hide his pregnant wife and son in a cenote, or natural well. The rest of the tribe is brutally taken away, and they have no way to get out.

The second part of this movie involves the trek to the Mayan city and what will happen to them. The trek is long, brutal, and hard. The increase in fear is palpable as we begin to see the outskirts of the city, complete with slums, working class neighborhoods, middle-class dwellings, and finally, the palaces of the grotesquely decorated elite. The women are sold at the slave market in a gut-wrenching scene. The mother-in-law, presented as tough, bitter, and crotchety in the first part of the movie, now becomes pathetic and sympathetic. The moment is truly powerful.

The men arrive at the city-center and only now realize that they are to be sacrificed. It becomes clear that there is a serious crisis in the city due to famine and lack of both food and rain, and the Maya believe that they can purchase good fortune from the gods with blood. This they clearly are doing in increasingly large numbers, and several of our tribe are sacrificed in a gore fest. From a historical standpoint, this scene is extremely accurate, although there is debate about the decapitation of prisoners. Nonetheless, this city has a skull rack, a feature seen at real Post-Classic Maya cities like Chichen Itza, and it is put to full use. If you are at all uncomfortable in witnessing pagan rituals presented in film, you’d better avoid this movie at all costs. I also question, from a historical standpoint, the sheer numbers of sacrifices that are made. It seems a bit high to me, as we see in a particular scene (you’ll know it when you see it). The huge body counts were generally restricted to the Aztecs. Nonetheless, virtually all of the details involving the sacrifice are correct.

continued…
 
The third act of this film involves the miraculous escape of our hero, and his desperate attempt to avoid capture and get home. As one critic said, this part of the movie “becomes The Fugitive, set in the fifteenth century”. It is a relentless chase, and Jaguar Paw uses both intelligence and stamina to escape. I won’t ruin the ending, but it’s exciting.

I also won’t ruin the final scene of the movie, except to say that my initial prediction was, suprisingly, correct. It’s also not quite historically accurate. BUT… much of this movie is about prophecy and doom, and if seen as a foretelling of what is about to occur, it works really, really well.

All in all, Mel Gibson draws a very subtle but supremely masterful analogy to our own society. This whole movie is about the respect for human life, and what happens when that is lost. It is engaging, fascinating, and captivating. The cinematogrophy is gorgeous. The few special effects are well-executed and unintrusive. The characters are interesting and we develop a genuine interest in them, even the “bad guys”. This is a masterful work, perhaps Gibson’s best. It is so good, in fact, I would not be surprised to see this garner some Oscar nominations, including best picture. The actor who plays Jaguar Paw honestly deserves a Best Actor nod; he is a fantastic new talent. I truly hope we see more of him in the future. In short, I would not hesitate to recommend this movie, although it will not be for everyone on this board.
 
Oops… I realized after I wrote this an important detail I got mixed up… the mother-in-law belonged to Jaguar Paw’s best friend, not him. (lol… Gimme a break, I wrote this at like 1 am! 😛 )
 
Great write up, I thought it was really violent, but I still really enjoyed it.
 
Good review - better than the movie for me. I only wish Roll Tide would have been one of the writers.

Honestly I went in with high expectations, but I felt that it didn’t live up to my expectations. I liked the way the film looked. I just didn’t like the story.
 
I’ve heard it reviewed 3 times by 3 different radio and tv stations.
They all acclaimed it as an excellent film and an extraordinary piece of work by Mel Gibson.
I really want to see it but don’t think I can handle the violence even though I KNOW it’s just a movie.
 
I thought the violence was too hyped up in the press. Yes; It’s violent, but I didn’t find it any harder to stomach than Braveheart and certainly less than Passion of the Christ.

I give it two thumbs up! Awesome flick!
 
Thank you so much for taking the time to post this review. It is a nice balance to what I read in Newsweek last week. I hope to be able to see this film for myself. I spent some time living among modern Maya in Guatemala, and so it interests me for that reason, along with the parallels to our own culture of death.
 
I think this film was absolutely one of the best I have ever seen. DH and I went on opening night. Truly amazing…I love the story, and I love the way it was filmed…beautiful.

It was not as violent as I thought it was going to be…with everything I’d heard I think I was expecting much worse. Then again, I’m really not a very squeamish person, and everyone has their own "gross-out " factor.

Other than the nature of the violence (which, I agree, is not gratuitous) I highly reccomend this movie.
 
All in all, Mel Gibson draws a very subtle but supremely masterful analogy to our own society. This whole movie is about the respect for human life, and what happens when that is lost. .
Could you elaborate on this a bit more possibly? In what way(s) was Gibson trying to draw analogies to our society? By “our society” do you mean America, the West at large, or the world at large?

Is the apparent disrespect of life in the movie a parallel to our societies acceptance of abortion? Or is it this and more?
 
I liked it up until the drop of blood on the guy’s shoulder. Everything was too fake after that part. Ah well it’s Mel’s first bad film in my opinion, although Patriot wasn’t that good either.:rolleyes:
 
Excellent review. Thank you!

I just returned from seeing the movie. I personally hate violent movies and generally avoid them. For that matter, I generally avoid all R rated movies. There’s too much violence going on in the real world for me to want to indulge in it at the movies.

Apocalypto, though, is clearly a cultural event. In reading several reviews over the past couple of days, I was intrigued that people either loved the movie or hated it. So I figured that Gibson was touching some sore spot among many of the dominant cultural elites who clearly hate this film.

So I decided to see it. I must say, my stomach was churning as I drove to the theater.

I’m glad I saw it. I had no need to worry.

As many have said, the violence is not gratuitous. It is not done in horror film style, with the intent of shocking and scaring you.

I can’t decide right now if this is a great film or not. In the long run, I don’t think it is. But it is clearly another sort of wake up call to Hollywood.

There’s already been a lot written about the ending. So I won’t say more about that. But a bit before the ending, there is a scene in the cenote that I think is breathtakingly beautiful. It is the one scene that brought tears to my eyes. And yes, I think it does lend support to this film being a comment on the war between the culture of death and the culture of life.

If you’re at all curious, go and see this film.
 
I want to see it! But I have to find someone to go with who has a strong stomach. My husband, unfortunately, doesn’t. :rolleyes:
 
Just another point to add…

The film is dedicated to Abel. The dedication appears about half way through the credits. (I’m a film geek, and I always stay through the credits :))

I think this adds an interesting point to the topic of what Gibson is speaking to with this film. It’s much more about the universal human condition, than about a specific society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top