--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
I hear what you're saying, I really do, but I just wanted to expand of what was already started as an opportunity for me to talk about the movie and some of the conclusions I came to. Like you, I didn't see any Christian themes in the movie and didn't even know Gibson had directed it until the end credits, therefore I was able to view the movie without any preconceived notions whatsoever with regard to what such a director might be trying to say in the movie. Like you, I viewed it as simply a good story well told with some spotty history as the backdrop. > > 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. Oopsy, my bad. When I wrote that, I had a momentarily impulse to google it to see if I had my facts right but then decided not to (very interesting...maybe I need to start acting on my impulses). > > ...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. Good comparison. And if I may extend a bit: as I recall, none of Beatty's, in this case, *political* rather than *religious* leanings came through in his direction of "Reds"...he was telling a good story with spotty history as the backdrop. > 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." Another good comparison, that is, "Cleopatra" to "Apocalypto", with the STOOOOOPID left out (been there, done that, not going there again).
