Apocalypto-Ho-Ho!!
So I went to see “Apocalypto” with Alex the other day.
Tis the season for killing tapirs, human sacrifice and revenge. Welcome to the frosty world of Mel Gibson, and what a world it is!! Beautifully filmed (the lush setting of one of the only parts of the rainforest left is incredible) and shot in an ancient language, this is a study from beginning to end in Mayans, culture, civilization and most of all . . . brutality.
I confess I wasn’t really sure of what to expect going in. As one of the few moviegoers who has never (I know!!) seen “Braveheart”, my exposure to Mel’s work has been limited. I found “The Patriot” to be a mildly interesting and entertaining flick, and thought “The Passion of The Christ” was well done. “Apocalypto” is a fictional look at Mayan tribes and some of their practices, as well as a pretty intense chase movie. From the very beginning Mel appears to revel in adding as much gore and detail as he can into every scene - if one beheading will do, show two . . . or even ten. The effect was one of unending violence and shock, and cannot help but make an impact. But when it was all over, the question at the front of my mind was . . . “What was Mel Gibson trying to say?”
Is it “solely” a meditation on the “inhumanity” of man? Did it point toward how we have “progressed”, or to how we have “not progressed at all”? Does “Apocalypto” accurately portray the Mayan culture? And how apocryphal (or not) was the final scene? So I left with mixed feelings about the movie . . . that a genius director had dropped me into a foreign culture and civilization for two hours and then shown more disturbing violence than probably any other movie I can think of. Cliches like “visually stunning” and “puts you INTO the action” all apply here, as do “relentlessly” and “brutal”. . . .
So as a cultural window into an ancient fictional tribe “Apocalypto” is powerful, as it is also as a meditation on the nature of humanity and inhumanity. I could have done without most of the violence, but if Mel’s motive was to evoke questions rather than giving answers, many will feel he has succeeded here.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
as with the aforementioned “braveheart”, was the violence in perspective to the story? as I find the line between gratuitious violence and appropriate mayhem being blurred, I have to ask this question. I recently saw “Blood Diamond” and found all the violence to be a character in the production. with out it (the violence), the movies would lack the hammer over the head which establishes the urgency surrounding the title needs to complete the story. I know violence can be difficult to absorb, but in context it may be the most important backing feature of a story!
oh yea, by the way……..DOGMA RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
micah
December 13th, 2006 at 9:06 am
Good points, Micah. The violence here is certainly impactful . . . It just left me unsure of the point he was trying to make.
Can we get your review of Blood Diamond on your Vox?
December 31st, 2006 at 8:51 am
I had read an interview that as bloody as people thought the movie was, this was the lite version. He wanted to be as realistic as possible, but there were a lot more horrible things that he cut out. wasn’t that nice?
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I can’t imagine . . . literally!!
Gibson certainly knows violence in movies!!
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
PS - Muis congrats, Lon!!