Mel Gibson's Apocalypto
August 27th 2007 06:59
Apocalypto
Mel Gibson, as a director, seems to be naturally drawn towards violent subject matter. His 1995 Oscar winner Braveheart was filled with as much gore as it was with Celtic bare bums. His controversial 2004 biblical epic The Passion Of the Christ was gratuitously nasty, in the opinion of this reviewer. OK, we get it. Jesus suffered for our sins. We don’t need to actually SEE two hours worth of the poor bloke being flogged and whipped, and nailed to a wooden cross. Passion ranks up there with the horrific remake of The Hills Have Eyes as one of the most unnecessarily bloodthirsty, shocking movies I’ve ever seen.
I think the critics must have been watching a different film to me, though, when they savaged Gibson’s latest historical drama Apocalypto. It was criticised upon its release as being graphically violent. That’s not what it was about at all. The film, if anything, is more of an adventure yarn. The latter half of the film, in which an escaped man intended as a sacrificial victim, is pursued through the forest by his Mayan captors; is akin to a Native American Rambo movie. The hunted becomes the hunter, and picks off the pursuers one by one using his wits, and a variety of traps.
This historical adventure is set at the height (and the beginning of the decline) of Mayan civilisation. A group of priests attack a forest settlement and take all of the young men prisoner. They intend to sacrifice all of them to their sun god. A very fortunate young hunter (Jaguar’s Paw) is spared, because of a convenient solar eclipse. The Mayan priests consider this a sign that the gods appetite for human hearts has been satiated. They release the prisoners, but throw spears at them as they flee, killing most of them. Jaguar’s Paw, the film’s main protagonist, has incredible luck in this film. He outruns a jaguar (I’m no expert on feline biology, but I think they sprint at an incredibly fast rate), survives a plunge from a waterfall, and takes out an army of marauding Mayan warriors single-handedly. The film, in an unusual twist for a production made in today’s cynical, depressing world; actually presents us with a happy ending. Jaguar’s Paw rescues his wife and children who have been fending for themselves inside an underground cave for several days; and gets his revenge on the men who murdered his father and brother.
The film is not actually as gory as the vocal community of naysayers makes it out to be. The much-reviled human sacrifice scene is more disturbing for what is implied rather than what is shown. The camera cuts away whenever something truly hideous occurs. The only grotesque scene to speak of was the opening, in which a tapir is hunted by the forest tribe, and the beast’s testicles are fed to a gullible villager. There isn’t a great deal of claret spilled. I thought Braveheart had a higher number of severed limbs, and decapitations. Apocalypto is no more gruesome than The Last of The Mohicans (which had some nasty scalpings and hearts-being-ripped-out scenes). I thought it was an entertaining historical drama. I have a particular fascination with this era in history (early pre-colonial and post-colonial America) and I am a great fan of movies dealing with the epoch in question (Mohicans, Dances with Wolves, The New World).
I was hoping the Spanish conquistadors would eventually show up in the narrative. They do, but only at the very end. So if you’re waiting for the Spaniards to arrive, you may be a little disappointed. The movie nearly exclusively focuses on Mayan culture (it is entirely in the Mayan language with English subtitles; and features, in a brave move, a cast of entirely non-familiar, at least to Western audiences, performers). The attention to detail is spectacular. The Mayan city is a very impressive set. It harkens back to the days of the Cecil B. De Mille epics, and big studio pictures like Ben Hur, Spartacus, and Cleopatra; when film studios would actually spend money on constructing enormous city-sized sets. None of that CGI rubbish is used here. Everything you see in Apocalypto is a physical, on-set, element. I’ve always thought that real elements look much more convincing than computer generated images. Watch the model spacecraft in the original Star Wars, and compare them with the videogame-ish CG ships in the recent Star Wars prequels. Models look much more realistic. The architecture of the Mayan city is very interesting, and there is some brilliant artwork displayed on the interior walls. Gibson is certainly a perfectionist. No expense is spared when it comes to authenticity. He worked closely with historians and archaeologists, who served as technical consultants on the film. Going to the trouble of using all Mayan dialogue is a very time-consuming and risky directorial decision, but it works beautifully (incidentally, the historical detail, and use of exclusively Latin and ancient Aramaic in Passion Of the Christ is one of its few saving graces).
The film was largely ignored by the Academy Awards, because of a major backlash against Mel Gibson. His recent behaviour (involving drunken anti-Semitic diatribes) has made him a very unpopular figure in Hollywood. It’s a shame, because I can normally separate a man from his work. Just ignore the fact that Gibson directed Apocalyto. You may be pleasantly surprised. It contains some very beautiful visual images, and provides a fascinating glimpse into a now-defunct culture. Check it out for yourself. The costumes, sets, production design, soundtrack, and makeup is of a high standard; and the story should appeal to anyone interested in early American history.
Mel Gibson, as a director, seems to be naturally drawn towards violent subject matter. His 1995 Oscar winner Braveheart was filled with as much gore as it was with Celtic bare bums. His controversial 2004 biblical epic The Passion Of the Christ was gratuitously nasty, in the opinion of this reviewer. OK, we get it. Jesus suffered for our sins. We don’t need to actually SEE two hours worth of the poor bloke being flogged and whipped, and nailed to a wooden cross. Passion ranks up there with the horrific remake of The Hills Have Eyes as one of the most unnecessarily bloodthirsty, shocking movies I’ve ever seen.
I think the critics must have been watching a different film to me, though, when they savaged Gibson’s latest historical drama Apocalypto. It was criticised upon its release as being graphically violent. That’s not what it was about at all. The film, if anything, is more of an adventure yarn. The latter half of the film, in which an escaped man intended as a sacrificial victim, is pursued through the forest by his Mayan captors; is akin to a Native American Rambo movie. The hunted becomes the hunter, and picks off the pursuers one by one using his wits, and a variety of traps.
This historical adventure is set at the height (and the beginning of the decline) of Mayan civilisation. A group of priests attack a forest settlement and take all of the young men prisoner. They intend to sacrifice all of them to their sun god. A very fortunate young hunter (Jaguar’s Paw) is spared, because of a convenient solar eclipse. The Mayan priests consider this a sign that the gods appetite for human hearts has been satiated. They release the prisoners, but throw spears at them as they flee, killing most of them. Jaguar’s Paw, the film’s main protagonist, has incredible luck in this film. He outruns a jaguar (I’m no expert on feline biology, but I think they sprint at an incredibly fast rate), survives a plunge from a waterfall, and takes out an army of marauding Mayan warriors single-handedly. The film, in an unusual twist for a production made in today’s cynical, depressing world; actually presents us with a happy ending. Jaguar’s Paw rescues his wife and children who have been fending for themselves inside an underground cave for several days; and gets his revenge on the men who murdered his father and brother.
The film is not actually as gory as the vocal community of naysayers makes it out to be. The much-reviled human sacrifice scene is more disturbing for what is implied rather than what is shown. The camera cuts away whenever something truly hideous occurs. The only grotesque scene to speak of was the opening, in which a tapir is hunted by the forest tribe, and the beast’s testicles are fed to a gullible villager. There isn’t a great deal of claret spilled. I thought Braveheart had a higher number of severed limbs, and decapitations. Apocalypto is no more gruesome than The Last of The Mohicans (which had some nasty scalpings and hearts-being-ripped-out scenes). I thought it was an entertaining historical drama. I have a particular fascination with this era in history (early pre-colonial and post-colonial America) and I am a great fan of movies dealing with the epoch in question (Mohicans, Dances with Wolves, The New World).
I was hoping the Spanish conquistadors would eventually show up in the narrative. They do, but only at the very end. So if you’re waiting for the Spaniards to arrive, you may be a little disappointed. The movie nearly exclusively focuses on Mayan culture (it is entirely in the Mayan language with English subtitles; and features, in a brave move, a cast of entirely non-familiar, at least to Western audiences, performers). The attention to detail is spectacular. The Mayan city is a very impressive set. It harkens back to the days of the Cecil B. De Mille epics, and big studio pictures like Ben Hur, Spartacus, and Cleopatra; when film studios would actually spend money on constructing enormous city-sized sets. None of that CGI rubbish is used here. Everything you see in Apocalypto is a physical, on-set, element. I’ve always thought that real elements look much more convincing than computer generated images. Watch the model spacecraft in the original Star Wars, and compare them with the videogame-ish CG ships in the recent Star Wars prequels. Models look much more realistic. The architecture of the Mayan city is very interesting, and there is some brilliant artwork displayed on the interior walls. Gibson is certainly a perfectionist. No expense is spared when it comes to authenticity. He worked closely with historians and archaeologists, who served as technical consultants on the film. Going to the trouble of using all Mayan dialogue is a very time-consuming and risky directorial decision, but it works beautifully (incidentally, the historical detail, and use of exclusively Latin and ancient Aramaic in Passion Of the Christ is one of its few saving graces).
The film was largely ignored by the Academy Awards, because of a major backlash against Mel Gibson. His recent behaviour (involving drunken anti-Semitic diatribes) has made him a very unpopular figure in Hollywood. It’s a shame, because I can normally separate a man from his work. Just ignore the fact that Gibson directed Apocalyto. You may be pleasantly surprised. It contains some very beautiful visual images, and provides a fascinating glimpse into a now-defunct culture. Check it out for yourself. The costumes, sets, production design, soundtrack, and makeup is of a high standard; and the story should appeal to anyone interested in early American history.
| 75 |
| Vote |
Comments (1)
Add Comments
Read More