I saw ‘Apocalypto’ recently, and without a doubt, it now ranks as one of my favorite films. Although it’s violent--sometimes graphically so—but I thought it a very humanistic movie all the same.  As an example: one of my favorite scenes was of an old woman helplessly and sorrowfully following her son-in-law as he’s led away. There’s no dialogue, but the scene is still so tender, and so damn sad!  The movie had another thing going for it--it made me curious.   Curious enough to wander through wikipedia, where I learned that the Mayan civilization spanned roughly a 1000 years, and had it’s heyday (termed the Classical period, because the Mayan art reminded early archeologists of early western statuary) several hundred years before the Spaniards sailed in, that they had several different calendars—including a 365-day solar calendar, and that they had zero—likely before India and Arabia clued-in the Caucasians about it’s uses.  Mayans were the only ones on this side of the ocean with a written alphabet, and practiced some serious body modifications—such as molding their children to have crossed-eyes and flattened foreheads. And they also thought suicide was a noble death.

I also learned that Mel Gibson’s original intent for the film was to create a Chase movie (as in car chases, etc)—but to have 'The Chase' stripped down to its barest essentials—a man running for his life; to have this take place in pre-Columbian Mexico was a secondary idea.  While reading about the film, I also came across the commentary of its critics.  As you can guess, the people most pissed off about this film are the academics.  Although they ignore Mr. Gibson’s advice to not view this film as if it were a historical document, I guess I can see how they’d be annoyed at the producers for cherry-picking images from very distinct and discrete historical elements from the entire millennial era of Mayan existence.  I suppose it would be similar to me being expected to accept as reality a film that featured medieval knight fighting going about his buisiness in 1970’s New York City (actually—I’d probably go to see that).  Still, people shouldn’t try to make a documentary out of something that’s intended as a vehicle for pure entertainment.  To expect the producers to convey the sophisticated astronomical discoveries of the Mayans, when all they had were two hours to set up a chase scene, is unrealistic and misses the point.  But again, if you’ve spent a majority of your life studying the Mayans, to the point where you’d call yourself a ‘Mayanist’, I could see where you’d be cheesed-off over the liberal use of classical-styled temples decorated with what is obviously post-classical stonework.

I did, however, have a serious issue with was one scholar’s movie critique, titled: ‘Is Apocalypto Pornography?’   The author’s stance was angrily against the supposed Pro-colonial message (White is Right) of the movie, conveyed by portraying the Mayans as brutish and in need of saving.  I don’t have a problem with her being upset by any message that promotes that sort of attitude, but the only way she can extract a pro-colonial message is if she can also extract a message of salvation, and I can’t figure out how she gets that from a film that’s called ‘APOCALYPSE’?    How did she arrive at this conclusion?   I mean—I had the opposite reaction--that this was a tragedy, and the truly tragic moment was the very end with the arrival of the ships.  How can two people watch the same film, and have such completely opposing views on what they saw?

In case you have not seen this film, here’s a quick synopsis: the film starts in an idyllic village in the jungle, where we meet and form an attachment to our hero and his family.  Ten minutes later, hell breaks out and most everyone from the village are taken off to the nearest city-state where they are to be either sold into slavery, or sacrificed and tossed down a historically inaccurate but very impressive stepped-pyramid.  Something happens, and our hero escapes, but not before completely pissing off this biggest bad guy, which then leads to our chase.  Within the last five minutes of the movie, our hero leads what remains of the baddies down to a beach, where we then see the ships of the conquistadores dropping anchor.  My first reaction to these ships is, ‘uh oh, now everyone’s fucked’.  Apparently when the assistant professor of the above-mentioned article saw these ships, she thought to herself ‘well look at this, how typical—the white guys have come to save the day’. 

I’m confused by her interpretation not only because I thought the title of the film should have given a lot away about the intended message, but also because at the very last minute of the film, our hero turns his back on the ship and goes into the forest ‘to seek a new beginning’.  And if that doesn’t call her whole interpretation a bunch of hogwash, there’s an earlier scene that’s heavy on the foreshadowing, where a dying girl prophesizes the end of the world.  These weren’t subtle messages—the whole movie was all grimness and little hope—the only one who gets out alive is the one who turned away from the new arrivals.  How did this author come to her conclusion?  Where is the justification for subjugating the Mayans?  What the hell is she seeing in that movie that I am not, and what is it that I am seeing that she cannot. 

Hmm. well, anyhow--go see it for yourself, then let me know which one of us is smoking dope.