Yesterday, I came across this article about Apocalypto: Apocalypto' a distorted view of Maya history
Quote from the article:
"Stereotypes of bloodthirsty savagery and moral degeneracy have been used to vilify indigenous peoples for 500 years--by every government that has sought to justify the denial of civil rights to native peoples."
This is certainly true....
"These "entertaining" images affect ordinary people too. Native Americans--like African-Americans, gays and lesbians--are at constant risk of hate crimes."
Hmmm...while I won't dispute this, I don't see a film dipicting that time (or distorting, depending on your point of view) having nearly the negative impact as other "political" statements and actions such as the contraversy of immigration. I certainly do NOT like history being re-written to accomodate a story, but is this the case, is it "creative license"? Mel Gibson states that one should not consider the movie as a historical document. But how much of the "creative license" is being taken....and are the viewers focusing on the history or the story? The problem is that it comes at a delicate time in Guatemala's history where the indiginous are still fighting for basic human rights. They have a right to be proud of their roots...the advances revealed in the ruins are fascinating and simply amazing.
To complicate matters, historians can't totally agree on the reasons for the demise of the Maya Empire. I recently saw a special on Discovery Channel which claims a mini-ice age might have been the culprit (which would have lowered the water supply). Many of us have heard that the civilization was violent *YET* one of the most advanced in areas of math and science.
Like our history books....the stories are still theories based on what has been left behind. There have been several recent discoveries in the ruins of Guatemala and Mexico which have uncovered more theories. In years to come, they may have another finding that conflicts with previous theories!
For now, the movie has exposed a "historical nerve" and we are publically learning a great deal about the historical theories through the criticism of the movie.
Here is an article from National Geographic: "Apocalypto" Tortures the Facts, Expert Says
Again, I can't really say that the movie does this or that....I guess I will just have to go see it.
Posted by Kelly at December 17, 2006 04:24 PMI certainly respect the people who are offended, but I also think its pretty neat that all the dialog is in a Mayan language.
Just as a counterpoint to the above article, here is what appeared in my local paper last week.
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/entertainment/16236496.htm
If anyone has seen the movie, could they please post their perceptions?
On the other hand, the movie seems to be raising interest in the Maya culture in general. Last week, while Christmas shopping at Borders, I noticed a shelf end display with no less than 6 books about the ancient Maya, including Popol Vuh, the ancient "bible" of the Maya.
I wouldn't say all publicity is good publicity, but if Apocalypto encourages people to learn more about the Maya, that's good, in my opinion.
Posted by: Paul at December 22, 2006 06:03 PMPaul -
I have to agree with you on this. I would hope that many folks are like myself and movies tend to spark some curiosity.
I also noticed that there were MANY more books available in one of our large bookstores here in Atlanta than a year ago (I could only find one before and it was buried amongst some Egyptian books!) As an oddity, they stopped carrying ANY adoption magazines which was a huge shock!
So, if others are inclined to investigate, this is the time to browse a few books at your local bookstore.
Posted by: Kelly (guatadopt.com) at December 24, 2006 01:13 PMI saw the movie and thought it was brilliant! I highly recommend seeing it. Not just for the gorgeous scenery and tribal decoration, but for the story line as well.
The human sacrifice is only one element of a bigger picture and is an accurate portrayal of the murals that can be seen in the temples. A bit gory, but it is easy to look away in time.
I haven't read the National Geographic article yet, so can't comment on that. The other articles and talks I have heard that criticize the movie seem to be very race-based. In discussing this with a friend from southern Mexico, we think the criticism is due to Latinos not being used to seeing their culture represented in such a light.
It doesn't make the Maya look any more savage than any other historical movie of any other culture. Look at movies like Troy or other European historical dramas. It isn't so much the savagery, but the fact that the savagery hasn't been shown in such a dramatic way before.
My Mexican friend found the urban scene the most disturbing. The fact that here was this civilized and developed society with slaves, with slaves that were spewing blood, with thieves stealing from the vendors, with uncouth behavior -- these were the images that bothered him the most. Not the sacrifices.
For us, it was a very human story. It is a story of a struggle between village peoples and the urban king. There was complexity in the relationships between the king and the priest. There was the magical moment of the solar eclipse.
According to an interview with the archaeologist consultant, all of the tattoos and wearing of jade on the teeth and body were all accurate from his hours and hours of research, with the exception of the nose chains the women wore.
As to the criticism that natives weren't hired for lead roles: the woman who plays Jaguar Paw's wife is Yucatec and has never even seen a movie before.
I though the movie was beautiful and encourage everyone to see it, whatever your feelings of Mel Gibson. I felt like it really brought the Maya to life, and for me, part Native American, it brought my own heritage to life as well.
Posted by: Sheryl at December 30, 2006 01:25 PM