TurquoiseB wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> TurquoiseB wrote:
>>
>>> And as far as I'm concerned, anyone who saw some
>>> kind of Christian theme there was projecting it
>>> onto the film, along with their existing dislike
>>> of Mel Gibson. It's a pretty fine adventure tale,
>>> set at the sunset of the Mayan empire. Violent,
>>> yes, because that was a violent time, but very
>>> well done in my opinion. If the history is not
>>> exact, well...that's not necessarily an artist's
>>> job, is it? Shakespeare fucked up history right
>>> and left. The artist's job is similar to that of
>>> the shamans you see in this film -- to tell a tale
>>> of power that uplifts and entertains. Mel Gibson
>>> did both. His critics can go suck eggs.
>>>
>> I will admit the ending was a little jarring from what
>> little I know of Mayan history. We'll have to take that
>> metaphorically.
>>
>
> As, I suspect, it was intended. There is no mention
> in the film of what era it supposedly is taking place
> in. None. Since Mayan culture (although degraded from
> its heyday) lasted well into the 16th century, I have
> to believe that any "scholar" objecting to historical
> inaccuracy is projecting *onto* the film his assumptions
> of when in history it takes place. No such information
> is given in the film itself.
>
> Also, when it comes to claims that Mel Gibson imposed
> his Christian sensibilities on the film, showing the
> arriving Westerners as some sort of Christian saviors
> arriving to lead a degraded society to God, that too
> is projected. The shots of the Westerners last for at
> most a minute at the end of the film, and the main
> character takes one look at them and, having dealt
> with other native interlopers into his garden of Eden
> recently, tells his wife that they should "go into the
> forest" rather than greet them. Wise man. Far wiser
> than those who badrap a film they've never seen, or
> those "scholars" who badrap what they projected *onto*
> a film *they* never really saw either.
>
Indeed I think what he was saying there was that the incringement of
western society was no better than what they had to deal with before.
> It's a ballsy film, and I suspect history will treat
> it far better than the petty, judgmental assholes who
> trashed it -- often without seeing it -- just because
> they were being judgmental about its director's
> inability to handle alcohol.
>
> Going into reactive mode and acting like an idiot over
> a film you've never seen, going into reactive mode and
> acting like an idiot "protecting" a man you've never
> met. Related? I leave that up to those wiser than I to
> figure out.
Yup, we're getting some pretty "wooden" liberals these days too.
