Apocalypto
Apocalypto seems to be liked primarily because it's very good at making violence brutal and horrifying. But I feel people don't really question the conceit this movie is landing on about that.
On its face, I think what annoys me about this movie is that it's such a stereotypical and shallow view of Meso-American society. Yes, there were human sacrifices and brutal raids on other people. But it misses the political and spiritual context of this; it paints Meso-American society as simply violent savages who embellish violence for the sake of violence or at least justify it on some deranged religious extremism. There are plenty of stories about the outlandish tendencies of Meso-American ritualistic sacrifice but they're not some unique outlier of this. No one reduces ancient civilizations in the Levant to committing human sacrifices. Or Chinese. Or Celts. Or Greeks. If any director were to tackle this subject in the context of any of these civilizations, a lot more respect would be given to the cultural context in which it exists. It wouldn't pretend to define the entire makeup of what that civilization is. "The Wicker Man" specifically plays into the culture around human sacrifice within the Celtic framework but it still treats the people committing these acts with far more dignity than this movie does. There's a specific double standard put on the Meso-Americans for what is a fairly common practice across various cultures that stems from colonial hyperbolics and I can't help but view this movie as a symptom of that. What bothers me isn't the lack of historical accuracy; great historical films rarely are, but moreso that to the American filmmaker, it's that American directors can't find anything more to engage with on a civilization like the Mayans than this perception of obscene brutality. It gets more glaring when films like "Return to Atzlan" and "Eréndira la indomable" are far more engaged with the principles of Meso-American civilization than gawking at an idealization of their brutality. Why must Gibson be this reductionist?
I believe the reason Gibson decides to lean on this perception is that he saw the collapse of the Mayan civilization as a strong means to explore the idea of how civilizations undermine themselves. This is what Gibson himself stated, and the mysterious collapse of the Mayans and the reputation Meso-America has of brutality is certainly something a modern American would run wild with in terms of imagination. But the thing is, it's less of an exploration of collapse and moreso of moral degradation. But not what CAUSES that degradation; rather, that the culture the Mayans led is inherently immoral and this... somehow leads to their collapse? Nothing about this movie is interested in exploring the political dimensions of the Mayans, the people who led this civilization, or the spiritual importance of these rituals. It's depicting their violence as horrific but this is so surface level and not at all achieving what Gibson wants, especially since he also wants to convey that the Mayan's issues are not too dissimilar to our own, and it's just like.... how? Last I recall, people in contemporary New York are not committing ritualistic sacrifice or pulling raids on random tribal groups. What are you comparing this to exactly? Historical parallels are not invalid, but there needs to be specific consciousness as to the uniqueness of tribulations that occurred which are unique to that place and timeframe. I don't think Gibson is conscious of this. He just views the Mayans as morally repulsive based on stereotypes but isn't saying it out loud.
To give Gibson credit, it's admirable how much effort he put into making it look authentic. Very much "boy who just like how shit looks" type of vibe given that he seems to only care about the aesthetic. Composition wise, it's kinda boring to me and I feel the lighting is way too typical for a "this is a dark movie!" Type of vibe but I do think that it knows how to be effectively brutal in its depiction of violence. It's grounded in its gore, putting weight on how horrifying the Mayans are. While I don't like that the Mayans are depicted as superficially as this to begin with, I won't deny that the execution of this presentation is effective even if it is tawdry.
I view it as uncharitable to view the ending as framing the Mayans as "needing salvation" in the form of colonial Spaniards but in actuality the framing is moreso viewing the Spaniards as "more horror" that the main heroes look upon with dismay and want to avoid. There's no sense of their arrival indicating an end to the horror nor are they framed as a heroic outlier. The reaction of our heroes conveys a sense of dismissiveness to them, that their lives would be better if they avoided both. That happiness for them is not being involved in either side of this eventual conflict.
On the other hand, I also don't LIKE that they appear at all. If we're to view the conceit of this movie as moral depravity causing the downfall of civilization, why include the Spaniards in this? What do they add to the movie? If there was an intent to dive into a sense of continuing dread of imperial powers, it might have made sense to do so, especially as a foil or contrast to an established threat. But the movie ends before it even tries to do this. Their appearance feels as if the movie wanted to identify itself as having some historical authenticity, but this is only true within its superficial aesthetic. It's arguably not even accurate in that sense either. It bugs me because why make a movie that insists on being about Meso-American society but also slap the colonialists at the end to steer it away from that focus? Why can't a movie about Meso-America be divorced from that history? It is a hugely important event in the history of the world, but it also feels as if writers can't comprehend an indigenous America that existed before colonialism occurred. It's so unimaginative and demeaning. It feels like a cop out too, that somehow our heroes can live away from grander political society and that society is inherently repulsive. Maybe there's a tragedy in reading that they CAN'T, but I also think it comes from a space that's deeply dismissive of any merits the Mayans had.
I feel the reception to this is moreso on the way it appeals to people's sense of thrill than an earnest exploration of anything. It comes off as using the Mayan's as a means to an end but I think Gibson portrays this film as asserting more powerful meaning than it actually has. I don't think it says anything meaningful about any human society, least of all the Mayans.
On its face, I think what annoys me about this movie is that it's such a stereotypical and shallow view of Meso-American society. Yes, there were human sacrifices and brutal raids on other people. But it misses the political and spiritual context of this; it paints Meso-American society as simply violent savages who embellish violence for the sake of violence or at least justify it on some deranged religious extremism. There are plenty of stories about the outlandish tendencies of Meso-American ritualistic sacrifice but they're not some unique outlier of this. No one reduces ancient civilizations in the Levant to committing human sacrifices. Or Chinese. Or Celts. Or Greeks. If any director were to tackle this subject in the context of any of these civilizations, a lot more respect would be given to the cultural context in which it exists. It wouldn't pretend to define the entire makeup of what that civilization is. "The Wicker Man" specifically plays into the culture around human sacrifice within the Celtic framework but it still treats the people committing these acts with far more dignity than this movie does. There's a specific double standard put on the Meso-Americans for what is a fairly common practice across various cultures that stems from colonial hyperbolics and I can't help but view this movie as a symptom of that. What bothers me isn't the lack of historical accuracy; great historical films rarely are, but moreso that to the American filmmaker, it's that American directors can't find anything more to engage with on a civilization like the Mayans than this perception of obscene brutality. It gets more glaring when films like "Return to Atzlan" and "Eréndira la indomable" are far more engaged with the principles of Meso-American civilization than gawking at an idealization of their brutality. Why must Gibson be this reductionist?
I believe the reason Gibson decides to lean on this perception is that he saw the collapse of the Mayan civilization as a strong means to explore the idea of how civilizations undermine themselves. This is what Gibson himself stated, and the mysterious collapse of the Mayans and the reputation Meso-America has of brutality is certainly something a modern American would run wild with in terms of imagination. But the thing is, it's less of an exploration of collapse and moreso of moral degradation. But not what CAUSES that degradation; rather, that the culture the Mayans led is inherently immoral and this... somehow leads to their collapse? Nothing about this movie is interested in exploring the political dimensions of the Mayans, the people who led this civilization, or the spiritual importance of these rituals. It's depicting their violence as horrific but this is so surface level and not at all achieving what Gibson wants, especially since he also wants to convey that the Mayan's issues are not too dissimilar to our own, and it's just like.... how? Last I recall, people in contemporary New York are not committing ritualistic sacrifice or pulling raids on random tribal groups. What are you comparing this to exactly? Historical parallels are not invalid, but there needs to be specific consciousness as to the uniqueness of tribulations that occurred which are unique to that place and timeframe. I don't think Gibson is conscious of this. He just views the Mayans as morally repulsive based on stereotypes but isn't saying it out loud.
To give Gibson credit, it's admirable how much effort he put into making it look authentic. Very much "boy who just like how shit looks" type of vibe given that he seems to only care about the aesthetic. Composition wise, it's kinda boring to me and I feel the lighting is way too typical for a "this is a dark movie!" Type of vibe but I do think that it knows how to be effectively brutal in its depiction of violence. It's grounded in its gore, putting weight on how horrifying the Mayans are. While I don't like that the Mayans are depicted as superficially as this to begin with, I won't deny that the execution of this presentation is effective even if it is tawdry.
I view it as uncharitable to view the ending as framing the Mayans as "needing salvation" in the form of colonial Spaniards but in actuality the framing is moreso viewing the Spaniards as "more horror" that the main heroes look upon with dismay and want to avoid. There's no sense of their arrival indicating an end to the horror nor are they framed as a heroic outlier. The reaction of our heroes conveys a sense of dismissiveness to them, that their lives would be better if they avoided both. That happiness for them is not being involved in either side of this eventual conflict.
On the other hand, I also don't LIKE that they appear at all. If we're to view the conceit of this movie as moral depravity causing the downfall of civilization, why include the Spaniards in this? What do they add to the movie? If there was an intent to dive into a sense of continuing dread of imperial powers, it might have made sense to do so, especially as a foil or contrast to an established threat. But the movie ends before it even tries to do this. Their appearance feels as if the movie wanted to identify itself as having some historical authenticity, but this is only true within its superficial aesthetic. It's arguably not even accurate in that sense either. It bugs me because why make a movie that insists on being about Meso-American society but also slap the colonialists at the end to steer it away from that focus? Why can't a movie about Meso-America be divorced from that history? It is a hugely important event in the history of the world, but it also feels as if writers can't comprehend an indigenous America that existed before colonialism occurred. It's so unimaginative and demeaning. It feels like a cop out too, that somehow our heroes can live away from grander political society and that society is inherently repulsive. Maybe there's a tragedy in reading that they CAN'T, but I also think it comes from a space that's deeply dismissive of any merits the Mayans had.
I feel the reception to this is moreso on the way it appeals to people's sense of thrill than an earnest exploration of anything. It comes off as using the Mayan's as a means to an end but I think Gibson portrays this film as asserting more powerful meaning than it actually has. I don't think it says anything meaningful about any human society, least of all the Mayans.
Mini Review: Apocalypto seems to be liked primarily because it's very good at making violence brutal and horrifying. But I feel people don't really question the conceit this movie is landing on about that. On its face, I think what annoys me about this movie is that it's such a stereotypical and shallow view of Meso-American society. Yes, there were human sacrifices and brutal raids on other people. But it misses the political and spiritual context of this;...
Watch the Trailer