--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: >
<snip> > Just because I love this example of Judythink, I'll expand on it. :-) > > http://www.salon.com/2006/12/15/maya/ > <http://www.salon.com/2006/12/15/maya/> > > She glommed onto this Salon article, written by an anthropologist who > was apoplectic because a film that was intended to be a popular > entertainment didn't portray the facts about the historical Maya *as he > wanted them to*. The author takes himself and his study of a dead > civilization SO seriously, and can't stand anyone using it as mere > backdrop to a story. One gets the feeling all throughout his article > that he really thinks that people should have saved the ten bucks they > spent on the movie and paid it to listen to him talk, talk, talk about > stuff they weren't interested in. That's just SO Judy...I can see why > she glommed onto this guy, and his article. They're a lot alike. > > Because she never bothered to see the movie before using it as an excuse > to dump on someone she already disliked (Mel Gibson), Judy also has no > idea that the pedantic author she is citing *missed the whole point of > the movie*. It was basically an adventure tale plus the thing Mel Gibson > *always* puts in *all* of his movies -- a love story. The hero spends > almost the entire film trying to find and rescue his wife and children. > The rest of the film, including all the violence that people harped on, > is just scenery, backdrop for the foreground story. But Judy wouldn't > know that, because she never saw the movie. > > One gets the feeling that the author of the Salon piece didn't really > see it, either. He says stuff like, "In Apocalypto, the arrival of the > Spanish signals 'a new beginning.' Remarkably, the event is portrayed as > tranquil, as if the Spaniards are the adults who have finally come to > rescue the 'littleuns' stranded on the island of William Golding's > "Lord of the Flies." This is total bullshit, and did not happen in > the film. The pedantic professor is *projecting* this onto the movie. > The line "a new beginning" clearly refers to the hero's new life now > that he has rescued his wife and children, and escaped his pursuers. It > has *nothing to do* with the arrival of the Spanish; they are mere > backdrops. If what I remember in history is correct, i.e. that the Spaniards brought smallpox and other disease to the Mayan empire, then I viewed the arrival of the Spaniards at the end of the movie as the ultimate ironic statement of the movie...they actually *hastened* the downfall of the Mayan empire (now how's *that* for change?). Really, this was the first thought that went through my mind the first time I saw the movie and the camera panned from the surprised faces of the Mayans on the beach to the Spanish ships anchored offshore. With that in mind, perhaps one can now interpret what happened in the movie in other ways: karmic return for the "civilized" Mayans, the salvation of the young Mayan (once again) and his family by his decision to turn his back on the yet unknown and ultimate death that the Spaniards were bringing (again, this is what I thought the first time I saw this scene), etc. I found the movie disturbing yet fascinating at the same time, and am not sure one can read too much into the movie other than Gibson's story-telling ability then letting the audience come to their own conclusions. However, with his beliefs coming through loud and clear in his later "Passion of the Christ" movie, maybe the arrival of the Spaniards *was* intended to represent the ultimate salvation of the heathen Mayans (now how's *that* for salvation?). > The pedantic professor goes on, with even more *pure projection*. He > says, "But in the movie, after two hours of excess, hyperbole and > hysteria, the Spaniards represent the arrival of sanity to the Maya > world. The tacit paternalism is devastating." Again, NONE OF THIS IS IN > THE MOVIE. HE *PROJECTED* IT THERE. In the movie itself, there is only a > 3-4 second shot of a European ship and sailors heading towards the > shore, and then the *real* protagonists of the movie turn away from them > and go back to their lives. The idea that Mel Gibson was trying to say > that the Spaniards brought civilization to a savage world IS NOT IN THE > MOVIE. > > Finally, the pedantic professor ends by revealing what the bug up his > butt *really* is. He's pissed off that people are watching Mel Gibson's > movie and not listening to him and other pedantic academics like him: "I > can only hope that audiences seeing this movie will be motivated to > learn about the Maya present and past rather than be sated > by Gibson's sacrificial offering at the altar of entertainment." > > People who take themselves too seriously and overrate their impact upon > the world -- whether they be pedantic university professors or > agraphobic old women in front of a computer ranting about Christians she > doesn't like -- often miss this idea of "entertainment." It was a > fuckin' MOVIE, ferchrissakes. It was *supposed* to be an entertainment. > It was NOT supposed to be a dull, boring academic treatise on the Maya, > like the ones the author of this hit piece probably bores his students > with. > > He just dumped on the movie and its director because he was jealous that > they were getting more attention than he was. Judy took his jealousy and > infused it with something that *wasn't there* in the original article -- > "Christian bigotry" -- and used it as an excuse to rant about someone > she already didn't like. > > She should "hook up" with the professor. They could work as a team and > bore people together, while believing that THEY are the smart ones, the > ones who "matter" in the world, while others just pursue > "entertainment." > > Give me entertainment any time. Mel may not be the most pleasant person > in the world, and may in fact BE a Christian bigot at times. But he > WASN'T one in this film. What he was was a storyteller, trying to craft > a good entertainment. I think he did so. > > What the detractors are really pissed off about is that they couldn't > tell an entertaining story if their lives depended on it. They have no > creativity, and not enough empathy with other human beings to craft a > tale that anyone would be interested in. The only "talent" they have, in > fact, is putting down other people they're jealous of. > > "Apocalypto" is not the best movie Mel Gibson ever made, but it's NOT > what Judy and this pedantic old poop tried to portray it as. It's an > entertainment, and a pretty good one, and that is all it was ever > intended to be. >
