--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: > > > > 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?).
This is true, but most of the "empire" was already gone by the time the Spanish arrived. > 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. Mine, too. Of course, we had the advantage of actually having seen the movie; Judy did not. > 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. One can interpret *a movie one has actually seen* any way one wants; that does not mean that the writer/director saw it that way. > 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. The whole point of the author's tirade and Judy's piggybacking on it was that they didn't WANT the audience to come to their own conclusions. They wanted them to agree with THEIR conclusions, however wrong they were. > However, with his beliefs coming through loud and clear in his > later "Passion of the Christ" movie... Ooops. Stop right there. "The Passion of the Christ" was *earlier*, not later. "Apocalypto" = 2006, "TPofC" = 2004. > ...maybe the arrival of the Spaniards *was* intended to represent > the ultimate salvation of the heathen Mayans (now how's *that* > for salvation?). Mel's one crazy-assed religious fanatic, that's for sure. What I'm saying is that I saw NONE of that in this film. Nor did most people who saw it. Even the Pedantic Professor didn't see anything "Christian" in the movie, or if he did he didn't mention it in the article he wrote for Salon. JUDY "saw" that -- in a film that she never saw. One would think, if she actually meant what she has said many times about "rigorous honesty" being the willingness to expose oneself to facts that might prove oneself W...W...W...WRONG, that she'd have bothered to rent the film by now and then issue an apology to Mel Gibson for slandering him. But I think we all know that's never going to happen. Please don't get me wrong. I don't think Mel Gibson is the best filmmaker in the world as a director, only that he has a certain flair for action/romance movies. In that respect, he's a lot like Warren Beatty. The latter's movie "Reds" was not about the Russian Revolution, ferchrissakes, it was about the love story between John Reed and Louise Bryant. Similarly, "Apocalypto" was not a movie about the Maya per se, or an attempt to be completely factual. That's what the Pedantic Professor would have wanted, or created himself if he'd had the ability to. It was an ENTERTAINMENT, a story meant to entertain, and possibly uplift with its eventual triumph of the main character overcoming everything thrown at him, and being reunited with his wife and kids. Trying to diss it for being not as factual as an academic Maya nerd might have wanted it to is as STOOOOOPID as trying to diss the film "Cleopatra" for being not 100% accurate in its depictions of Egypt and Roman soldiers. "Cleopatra" was a love story; so was "Apocalypto."
