Apocalypto

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm not going to pay to see it.
Mel Gibson's a anti-Semitic, homophobic jerk.
I hope it bombs.

Am I wrong to think this way?

What I may do, is pay to see 'Happy Feet' again and sneak into 'Apocalypto'. This way Mel gets none of my money. The last time I pad to see a Gibson flick was 'Braveheart'.

Opinions?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think may basic feeling is, I'm not going to avoid all Gibson movies, but my desire to see movies by him that have to do with historical and cultural events is pretty much zilch seeing as I have no faith in his perspective on historical and cultural events.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

From IMdB:

Some descendants of the Maya tribes depicted in Mel Gibson's Apocalypto have denounced the movie as racist and not representative of their ancient culture. In an interview with Reuters, Ignacio Ochoa, director of the Nahual Foundation, said, "Gibson replays, in glorious big budget Technicolor, an offensive and racist notion that Maya people were brutal to one another long before the arrival of Europeans and thus they deserved, in fact, needed, rescue." Lucio Yaxon, described by Reuters as a 23-year-old Mayan human rights activist, added, "Basically, the director is saying the Mayans are savages." Today's (Thursday) Los Angeles Times noted that archaeologist Richard Hansen was on hand throughout the shooting of the film, lending his advice to the production team. Production designer Tom Sanders told the newspaper, "It was really fun to say [to Hansen], 'Is there any proof they didn't do this?' When he said, 'There is no proof they didn't do that, ' that gives you some license to play."

Because, you know, when you're making a movie about historical events, it's so good to focus on what there isn't proof for. Is there any evidence they didn't have tupperware parties? No? Well, there's a two-for-one special on the rock-n-serve bowls today if you're Mayan!

[Gemini Cricket]

A Mayan tupperware party. Now there's a movie I'd go see.
:D

[Alex]

The personal lives of the people involved really don't affect my interest in seeing their product.

Are you wrong to feel that way? No. Though I don't feel the same.

Roman Polanski did things he shouldn't have and is a horrible person who has evaded taking responsibility for decades and still (sometimes) makes good movies.

David Lynch is a fervent proponent of one of the silliest new age psychobabble phenomenons to ever gain traction (TM) and still (sometimes) makes good movies.

John Ford was a homophobe and made many great movies.

Cecil B. DeMille made one of the great racist movies in history and still made many great movies.

O.J. Simpson killed his wife without impacting my interest in watching The Towering Inferno.

Walt Disney was a jerk and testified before HUAC and I still enjoy his theme park and many of his movies.

Half of Hollywood (hyperbole) has engaged in what I consider one of the most personally abhorrent actions (non-consensual adultery) and I still watch a few hundred movies every year.

Their personal lives may inform my interpretation of their art but it doesn't impact my interest in seeing it. However, if you feel strongly that what Gibson did means you can't give him any money then I say stand by the courage of your convictions and don't see the movie. "Stealing" the movie isn't right just because you don't like him.

[Moonliner]

I'm agnostic on Gibson. I really do think too much was made of one drunken tirade. When you are drunk and pissed you say words you know will hurt not ones you necessarily believe.

However I won't see any films by Woodie Allen or Tom Cruise based their moral standing.

[Gemini Cricket]

"Stealing" the movie isn't right just because you don't like him.
Sure it is. Two wrongs make a right.
:D


I hear what you're saying but 3 of the people on your list are dead. I'm not worried that money I give them is going towards anti-gay or anti-Jewish causes. Mel's trying to build a church for an extremely fundamentalist sect of Catholicism. That's not something I want to support.

Also, isn't not paying to see a film a good way for studios to know who they should and shouldn't be green-lighting and supporting? Mel's a freak.

I mean, were John Ford and Cecil B out in the media preaching and trying to convince others how to think their way? Were they actively trying to get people to be bigots? I don't know the answer to that, but Mel does. He also uses his movies to get that point across. 'Braveheart' is chocked full of homophobic crap but yet it's embraced by a lot of my friends of mine as one of the great films of all time. Yow!

If I had lived in Cecil B's time and knew about his racism, I wouldn't watch his films. (Not that I was ever a big fan of his.) Same goes for Ford.

[Prudence]

I won't see Tom Cruise films because I think he's a lousy actor. That he's apparently cuckoo is just gravy. A local review called Gibson "an angry, unstable, self-destructive artist guided by pure instinct." (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/295116_apocalypto08q.html)The jist of the review was that it was a response to the prevailing trend in Hollywood to glorify pre-western contact tribal cultures as uniformly civilized cultures that were corrupted by the evil West - but that Gibson didn't necessarily intended the movie that way.

I see about 1 movie a year, and this isn't likely to be it.

[mousepod]

...Cecil B. DeMille made one of the great racist movies in history...

Which one? The Crusades or The Greatest Show on Earth?

Seriously though, while I mostly agree with Alex, I think that when someone's objectionable morals informs their work, it should be a valid reason for judging said work. While I've yet to see a Polanski movie that has a pro-"sex with minors" message (well, maybe Tess), and David Lynch doesn't preach the TM gospel in his movies, there's plenty of evidence that Gibson's hateful world view is certainly present in the films he directs - from homophobia (Braveheart) to anti-semitism (the PotC without Johnny Depp). I'll see Apocalypto when it comes to HBO, but I won't contribute to Mel's big box office opening weekend.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

Should I get the chance to see it I would. I'm just not running out to see it because it looks boring and I've no interest in the subject matter.

I enjoy Gibson's films. Year of Living Dangerously is fantastic. The Lethal Weapon films are very entertaining. I thought BRaveheart was a well done film from top to bottom. I didn't think it was anymore homophobic than Schindler's List was anti-German. IMHO. I know alot of people were turned off by Passion of the Christ, but I thought it was a beautiful film.

I think anyone going into a historical film looking for accuracy is in for a rude awakening. I don't think there has ever been a 100% accurate portraial of historical events ever. I didn't expect Passion to be, or even Schindler's List - as an example.

[Alex]

Also, isn't not paying to see a film a good way for studios to know who they should and shouldn't be green-lighting and supporting? Mel's a freak.

Hollywood has already experimented with only allowing people to work if they subscribed to certain predetermined world views. It isn't a period generally well though of. Just because this time you agree with it doesn't, in my view, make it any better.

For some reason I typed "Cecil B. Demille" when I was thinking "D.W. Griffith" and Birth of a Nation was the racist movie in question.

Personally, I don't buy into the anti-semitic reading of The Passion of the Christ and think it was a great film. It is anti-semitic in the sense that it is a version of the story that Jews don't like. The alternative would be anti-Roman, they just don't have an anti-defamatation league to speak up for them.

But I understand the idea of not patronizong financially people with views you find objectionable. I just find the actual practice to be inconsistent (the vast majority of people who views I find to be objectionable in some way or another).

Calls for the studios to deny work to homophobes and anti-semites are essentially the same as calls for the studio to deny work to gays and communists. We just find that some of those more directly align with our own personal preferences and would find the remainder abhorrent.


As for Apocolypto, everything I hear is that it is an incredibly well made B-movie with lots of gore. Because it is Gibson it will then be layered by observers with lots of hidden messages that wouldn't be seen if it were made by Rodriguez or Jackson.

I don't agree with Gibson's cosmology but I do admire his balls-to-the-wall attitude of making exactly the movie he wants and to hell with anybody who tries to temper it. That doesn't mean I'll like the result (I like The Passion but don't care for Braveheart) but he is doing exactly what I wish most artists in Hollywood would do once they achieved the economic security that comes with super stardom. Clooney/Soderbergh are the only other ones I can think of who consistently do that.

[Gemini Cricket]

'Birth of a Nation' is the only film on AFI's top 100 list that I haven't seen.

[katiesue]

I'm not going to see it because it looks incredibly boring. And I can't take gore which is why I didn't see Passion either. I have to watch half of CSI through my fingers as it is.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm rushing out to see it as soon as I can, probably Sunday ... and I will make a point of going to the Cinerama Dome ... which I reserve for visually stunning films.

I don't know where on earth anyone could get the idea that this film would be boring. From what I understand, it's action-packed throughout ... as well as wonderfully acted and stunningly beautiful. The only reservation I personally have is its intense violence and brutality.

While not a scholar of the period, I have zero problem accepting that the Maya, near the depths of their decline, were a brutal and savage culture. What, the Aztecs had a monopoly on that? Far from having tupperware parties, I think the fact that so little record exists of their culture leaves it open to reasonable interpretation. Savagery among the pre-Columbian societies of central America is hardly a stretch, in my view.

As to not supporting Gibson ... well, I'd have to freeze stone cold in my tracks - never eating or driving or shopping again - if I wanted to refrain from supporing causes I abhor.

I felt silly for my self-boycot of Woody Allen movies for several years, and I don't intend to repeat that nonsense with Mel Gibson. I don't particularly like his work as a director. I though Braveheart was meh, and I can't bring myself to watch PotC sans Depp. I want to see Apocalypto on its merits alone as a fascinating adventure story set in a mileau where few films have tred, and with verisimilitude extending to the Mayan language spoken in the film. Perhaps its just a sucker's assumption on my part ... but why go to that trouble if you're going to create a film totally untrue to history?

If I can steal my stomach for the gore and violence, I will certainly be seeing this film ASAP.

[Sub la Goon]

What's Mayan is yours.

Seriously though, my view of Mel G is that he is bucking for the Oliver Stone award for out-of-control directing. His stuff just gets harder to watch and more egotistically skewed as time goes on. At least Tarantino started out that way and knows how to temper his excesses and not call too much attention to his own cleverness.

This probably will be a good movie to see in a large theater to show off the spectacle of it all. I will, however, wait for Netflix to snare this gem.

[mistyisjafo]

I stopped liking Mel Gibson right about the time he was in Lethal Weapon #2. I was never a big fan and have NO urge to see anything he's affiliated with or in.

[innerSpaceman]

Oddly enough, if he were present on screen ... I would be far less likely to want to see this film. He's certainly repugant to me, and I don't want to look at him.

Behind the scenes, he's just like any one of a million poor causes I give my money to for my own pleasure and survival.



One word about the descendents of the Maya objecting to their ancestors' portrayal in the film: Give me a frelling break!

I'm really sick and tired of that kind of thing. Ever since a bunch of whiney Arabs actually got Disney to edit out the lyric "they cut off your ear if they don't like your face" from Aladdin, I have zero tolerance for hysterical historical revisionism from thousand-year-later progeny. Get.Over.It. Some of your revered ancestors were barbarians. Deal.

[Gemini Cricket]

Ironic that someone gay and Jewish would give money to a Antisemitic homophobe.

[innerSpaceman]

I also object to the fact that I should somehow only object (or primarily object) to those who cause offense to my religion, my race, my orientation, etc.

Frankly, I've got a pretty thick skin ... and I'm more likely to object on behalf of other groups I don't belong to. Ya know, call me queer all you want ... but don't use the N word around me ... that kinda thing.



Anyway, I'm seeing Apocolypto in an hour or so ....

[innerSpaceman]

... and two hours later, my review is ....





Meh.





Not as in Mehl. Just meh. Nothing great, nothing terrible. A decent enough actioner in a very unusual setting. I guess I should give it points for keeping my interest as a foreign language film (I don't usually do well with subtitles).


I think many reviewers are giving it a bum rap as to blood and gore. I didn't find any of the bloodletting gratuitous. In fact, during plot-necessary scenes of human sacrifice, the action and lensing were staged to specifically avoid showing the gory stuff.

The lead actor who played Jaguar Paw was very effective, and the story was interesting. But it just didn't grab me all that much. Without spoiling too much, it's a tale of capture and escape and comeuppance ... and there was so much hard-hitting stuff that I felt should have hit me harder ... but somehow didn't.

The mid-section of the film was at once the most interesting and most irritaing part. As our hero is led through the Mayan suburbs and city, we get fascinating and visually breathtaking views of the culture and society ... but the characters move through all this like it's a theme park ride, and that's a tactic I hate.

If there was some kind of analogy about the decay of Mayan civilization to our own, it was not played out specifically. But I feel that's where the film was strongest. All in all though, not the bravura stupendousness that I'd hoped for. And certainly not the sadistic twist-fest that some have wrongly railed against.


No gaybashing or jewbaiting either, GC. But yeah, the Maya did not come off well. Maybe they'll be the next subject of Mel's DUI ranting.

[Alex]

Just got back from it as well.

Without much effort I could name a dozen recent movies that are just as explicit and sadistic with the violence and didn't feel it was anything out of line in that regard.

The thing that didn't sit well were some of the attempts at humor. The opening scene stuff was good and served to create a common connection with the audience (the locker room hasn't changed much). But some of the stuff later on really felt out of place and may be why some are reacting poorly to the violence. Either make it deep and significant or cartoonish, but what little humor there was undercut either.

This really wasn't the movie for a Midnight Cowboy reference.

Gibson hinted at something great with the scenes in the Mayan city. The corrupt struggle by power to maintain power when things start to go wrong. The misuse of fear and superstitition. But that is just a second act mechanism for setting up the third act chase.

From that point on it was just a genre flick that has been done many times. When Jaguar Paw took out his first bad guy in the jungle he should have said "yippee-kai-yay mother****er" just to give a nod to the best movie of this story type.

I was entertained. It was beautifully shot. I love listening to languages with absolutely no linguistic connection to Latin or Greek. The first half up until the temple scene is fantastic, brutal, and heartwrenching. The second half is just by-the-numbers genre work. Unfortunately, that is the reverse of what it needed to be. It is ok to start genre and go deep, but the reverse generally doesn't work well.

I think the reviews would be better for the exact same movie if the name on top was other than Mel Gibson and critics have gotten it into their heads that it is time to psychoanalyze the filmmaker and forget to give due consideration to the film.

The environment of a film is certainly valid for discussion but ultimately it is about the individual movie.