The Beviad–musings, mutterings and myths

A review of Mel Gibson’s “Apocalypto” in today’s paper finally cleared up something I had been wondering about vis a vis Mel’s latest project. I had wondered why on earth he picked the Mayans to focus on. There seemed to be so little that was nice about them, seeing as they practiced human sacrifice and so on. I couldn’t see why the man who had spent millions on The Passion of Christ, which was explicable by virtue of his being a fundamentalist Catholic, would bother recreating the Mayan world.

I thought maybe it had to do with an ‘end of times’ theme. You know, here was the mighty Mayan Empire, so rich and powerful, with their large impressive cities, and then, almost over night—they’re gone. The title, Apocalypto, suggested this, too. This, I thought, might be Mel’s way of warning the godless nations of today that Jesus is coming, and our world could as easily be gone tomorrow.

Mel has said in interviews that ‘apocalypse’ meant an ending, but also a new beginning, but somehow that just didn’t sink in for me.Today, in a horrified review in an American paper, someone not only renounced the film as unrealistic and defamatory for the ex-Mayans still living in Middle-America, but pointed out that the film’s conclusion, with the arrival of the Spanish Christians, wrongly indicated that there would be an improvement in the Mayans’ lives. what with the diseases the Europeans would give them inadvertently, and the conscious genicide that would follow as the Conquistadors stripped the Mayans of everything, she pointed out, this can only be seen as fundamentalist Christian propaganda. Apparently the film suggests that with the Catholic Europeans, not only would all this butchery be over, but everything would be much more civilized for the natives. (Well, I suppose there was at least no more human sacrifice, but isn’t everyone pretty clear on the matter of what harm Europeans did to the natives?)

So, we have to assume that Mel meant that as part of his idea of a ‘new beginning’. Yet the reviewer said she hated the film, because when it wasn’t being gratuitously violent, it was showing the natives (the ones in the villages down-stream from the cities, at least) as simple, silly people giggling at each other’s farts. In other words, even the ones who aren’t sacrificing humans are shown as far from being noble savages. Yet At the Movies, the tv show where two reviewers assess the movies (they used to be Sisko and Ebert until Sisko died), gave the film two enthusiastic thumbs up and said it kept them on the edges of their chairs.

Will I go to see it out of curiosity, just to see what it’s like? No. I gave up on Gibson after “Braveheart”, with its gratuitous violent death at the end of William Wallace. I swear that Mel enjoys torture in itself. Perhaps, growing up in his rather odd Catholic sect, he was shown the paintings of the Stations of the Cross, the kind I’ve heard of, with horrid pictures of the torture of Christ. Since he must have learned that Jesus gained even more nobility by such a death than he had earned by his miracles and teachings, he may now believe that torture in and of itself is enobling. Or that it leads to good box office results, and is a good forum for couching one’s philosophical beliefs. Get their attention, then slip in the message; that kind of thing. All I know is that it all seems sick to me, and is certainly not what I would want to see at Christmas, in any case. What was he thinking? Would anyone want to see this at Christmas? And yet the film made $14 million last weekend.

Review of Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto in today’s paper finally cleared up something I had been wondering about vis a vis Mel’s latest project. I had wondered why on earth he picked the Mayans to focus on. There seemed to be so little that was nice about them, seeing as they practiced human sacrifice and so on. I couldn’t see why the man who had spent millions on The Passion of Christ, which was explicable by virtue of his being a fundamentalist Catholic, would bother recreating the Mayan world.

I thought maybe it had to do with an ‘end of times’ theme. You know, here was the mighty Mayan Empire, so rich and powerful, with their large impressive cities, and then, almost over night—they’re gone. The title, Apocalypto, suggested this, too. Mel has said in interviews that ‘apocalypse’ meant an ending, but also a new beginning, but somehow that just didn’t sink in for me.

Today, a horrified review by someone in an American paper not only renounced the film as unrealistic and defamatory for the ex-Mayans still living in Middle-America, but pointed out that the film’s conclusion, with the arrival of the Spanish Christians, was indicated an improvement in the Mayans’ lives, what with the diseases the Europeans would give them inadvertently, and the conscious genicide that would follow as the Conquistadors stripped the Mayans of everything. Yet apparently the film suggests that with the Catholic Europeans, everything would be much more civilized for the natives. (Well, I suppose there was at least no more human sacrifice, isn’t everyone pretty clear on the matter of what harm Europeans did to the natives?)

So, we have to assume that Mel meant that as part of his idea of a new beginning. Yet the reviewer said she hated the film, because when it wasn’t being gratuously violent, it was showing the natives (the ones in the villages down-stream from the cities, at least) as simple, silly people who love fart jokes. In other words, even the ones who aren’t sacrificing humans are far from being noble savages. Yet At the Movies, the tv show where two reviewers assess the movies (they used to be Sisko and Ebert until Sisko died), gave the film two enthusiastic thumbs up and said it kept them on the edges of their chairs. Hmm.

Review of Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto in today’s paper finally cleared up something I had been wondering about vis a vis Mel’s latest project. I had wondered why on earth he picked the Mayans to focus on. There seemed to be so little that was nice about them, seeing as they practiced human sacrifice and so on. I couldn’t see why the man who had spent millions on The Passion of Christ, which was explicable by virtue of his being a fundamentalist Catholic, would bother recreating the Mayan world.

I thought maybe it had to do with an ‘end of times’ theme. You know, here was the mighty Mayan Empire, so rich and powerful, with their large impressive cities, and then, almost over night—they’re gone. The title, Apocalypto, suggested this, too. Mel has said in interviews that ‘apocalypse’ meant an ending, but also a new beginning, but somehow that just didn’t sink in for me.

Today, a horrified review by someone in an American paper not only renounced the film as unrealistic and defamatory for the ex-Mayans still living in Middle-America, but pointed out that the film’s conclusion, with the arrival of the Spanish Christians, was indicated an improvement in the Mayans’ lives, what with the diseases the Europeans would give them inadvertently, and the conscious genicide that would follow as the Conquistadors stripped the Mayans of everything. Yet apparently the film suggests that with the Catholic Europeans, everything would be much more civilized for the natives. (Well, I suppose there was at least no more human sacrifice, isn’t everyone pretty clear on the matter of what harm Europeans did to the natives?)

So, we have to assume that Mel meant that as part of his idea of a new beginning. Yet the reviewer said she hated the film, because when it wasn’t being gratuously violent, it was showing the natives (the ones in the villages down-stream from the cities, at least) as simple, silly people who love fart jokes. In other words, even the ones who aren’t sacrificing humans are far from being noble savages. Yet At the Movies, the tv show where two reviewers assess the movies (they used to be Sisko and Ebert until Sisko died), gave the film two enthusiastic thumbs up and said it kept them on the edges of their chairs. Hmm.