Saturday, December 09, 2006

Apocalypto

You know, in screenwriting we say that an ending should be "unexpected yet inevitable", but this may be the first time in almost a decade I can say I actually got the "unexpected" part. (No spoilers in the Comments.) Apocalypto is magnificent. It's visionary in the old-school sense of "one film-maker's consistent vision.". So simple, but simplicity exercised with ruthless emotional efficiency.

It's not a masterpiece but a masterwork. A must-see on the big screen, and the script's got some subtleties in it, a narrative simple, yet rich ... just go. It may not be the best movie of the year, but it's the greatest if that makes any sense.

The only odd thing is, if you stick around for the credits, the evil bloodthirsty Aztec priest is identified as "Rabbi Liebowitz" and the rapacious immoral Aztec Royal Family are "King and Queen Goldman." Minor points.

40 comments:

  1. Anonymous10:32 PM

    I've been reading recently that the big question regarding that film is how much Mel Gibson's little escapade last July was going to hurt the box office for this film. There were some comparisons made to the whole Tom Cruise MI3 numbers debate.

    I'm not sure how one can gauge that type of thing, really. Do you have any ideas regarding if and how much the box office will be affected? Someone offered the info that an opening of around $14 million would be considered acceptable even if seems low. At the same time, the same people seem to believe that this number would still be enough to make the number one spot for the weekend.

    I'm just wondering if there is anything different being said within the industry. Have you by any chance heard anything interesting about this? Just curious.

    RLT

    ReplyDelete
  2. it's a little weird, as it's such an out-of-the-mainstream movie, its apple-pie appeal was pretty low to begin with. So it was depending on big city numbers, but those are the places his little outburst hurt him most ... I don't know. This one, as far as every one I knwo in the industry, is a crapshoot.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous12:00 AM

    You just take all the violence and gore as a matter of course? You're completely insensitized to it? Does that bother you?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous5:19 AM

    I tried, but I couldn't do it.

    The film opened with the brutal, overly up close killing of a taper, and then showed the natives laughing over the kill.

    Sorry, but even though American Sportsmen act that way, I seriously doubt the natives would.

    Most indiginous tradition I am aware of, show these hunters offering prayer for the animal. Respectful of the spirit of life, yanno?

    Then we see this guy ripping into the raw, still warm testies of the animal with his teeth, goo squirting everywhere...

    He is in his twenties, has lived with these people his whole life, and is THAT gullable to their practical jokes?

    No. Not believable.

    Then we go into the bloodbath as the village is raided.

    Too much for me.

    I walked out and caught the last half of Borat.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous9:36 AM

    You're kidding, right? I thought it was surprisingly crude and half-hearted (pun intended): if a movie proposes to deal with a culture of mass sacrifice, then I want to see some MASS sacrifice, not just a couple of obscured wounds and piles of dead bodies. And the father-son-wife stuff was crudely transposed from Joe's Action Movie Scheme and Drive-In Menu.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You just take all the violence and gore as a matter of course? You're completely insensitized to it? Does that bother you?

    No, but it was appropriate. These were violent times, when people killed each other with sharp rocks. It's certainly more appropriate and more artistically justified than the weird snuff/gore turn that horror movies have taken lately.

    In this case in particular, I thought showing how close-up the act of killing at this time was not just appropriate, but required. And as to the pillage and rape of the village -- that's what happened. Not only did they do that, WHITE FOLK did that when they arrived and in Africa, and even now it's happening in places like Darfur. That's what it's like. People scream with snot and tears and bleed and watch their friends bleed out in front of them. I think the shiny gloss we put on such historical acts is more reprehensible, because that's what's desensitized us as a culture. Thinking war is like a video game is far more dangerous to a culture than thinking war is an ungodly, bloody, terrifying mess.

    One of the reason I always like TORN CURTAIN, by the way.

    As to the behaviour after the hunt -- well, some cultures are reverent, some aren't. It's not universal. and in many instances that reverence is romanticized. But your mileage may vary.

    The small version of the "mass killing" aspect for the Aztecs --I actually dug that it was smaller scale. The capitol of the Aztec nation had maybe 200,000 people in it at its height (which made it huge, granted, for that time) never mind whatever little outpost kingdom this should have been. And rather than the traditional big shiny temples, we got the hard-to-maintain masonry and rough construction feel.

    The thriller aspects had quite a few very base, simple manipulations -- and what may be biasing me is that they were executed so well. Like seeing a guy make a perfect drive down a straight fairway -- in theory not hard, but DAMN you appreciate a good one when you've actually swung a club.

    I'll restate. It's very simple, very raw -- if you're looking for sophisticated storytelling, go see Altman. But there's a hot, lean little core here which not a lot of film creators even have any more never mind execute.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous2:16 AM

    Sort-of SPOILER, if you're really touchy about these things.











    I love the way the very last line of the film harks back to the beginning, and renders the ending completely ambiguous.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous7:01 AM

    "i find too often natives are romanticized as honourable, majestic creatures almost, who don't know how to laugh or tease one another, who simply are above us, in a way."

    Yeah, except not really. Key word there is "creatures" - noble, innocent, and subhuman. It doesn't assuage anyone's guilt, it just keeps them nice and animalistic - kind of a nature channel copout viewpoint to keep us comfortable. Gee, it's sad what civilized societies did to them, but it's not like they were *people* or anything.

    The Mel Gibson route is more uncomfortable and probably a little closer to true. But with a little more of the "savages from the cities will overrun your small towns and eat your children" subtext. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous7:22 AM

    Most indiginous tradition I am aware of, show these hunters offering prayer for the animal. Respectful of the spirit of life, yanno?

    I am assuming here that your experience of indigenous hunters is limited to having seen Daniel Day-Lewis in "The Last of the Mohicans".

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous9:16 AM

    i'd have to agree with 7:22 a.m. anonymous, i've been on hunts with indigenous peoples and they treat their prey with no more reverence than the average white hunter. the animal represents dinner on the table and they're about as sentimental as someone pulling a turkey out of the freezer at your local big-box grocery store. the historical record shows that this was pretty much always the case. i'm not knocking the first nations, i just find this notion that people have of them as stewards of the land to be naive. spend some time with them and you'll find they're people just like you and me, the same strengths, the same flaws.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous1:06 PM

    If anyone's interested, I can recommend Prof. Lawrence Keeley's War Before Civilization as a good introduction to pre-historic (in the written-down sense) conflict among tribal organizations/nations. Keeley's basic premise is that, just like today, people have been gathering together in groups, identifying themselves through some characteristic, ascribing to others different characteristics, and then killing them, for a long time. Many of those groups, based on the archaeological record, were pretty thorough in the prosecution of their wars.

    For a fictional (and highly stylized) examination of the same principle, I suggest Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian. Equal opportunity bloodshed and sociography (full disclosure, I love McCarthy's writing, and recognize that not everyone does).

    Both texts are good ways to break down the illusion (a little bit) of romanticized cultures (with the understanding that McCarthy's writing has its own romanticized aspects).

    Haven't seen the film. Am currently wrasslin' with the idea of wanting to see a potentially interesting film set in ancient Mesoamerica, and not wanting to contribute much to lining Mel's pockets.

    Thanks,

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  12. John, what's your professional opinion on the VANITY FAIR article "Why Women aren't Funny"?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous8:01 AM

    The only odd thing is, if you stick around for the credits, the evil bloodthirsty Aztec priest is identified as "Rabbi Liebowitz" and the rapacious immoral Aztec Royal Family are "King and Queen Goldman."

    {snicker} Have you seen this?
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=KP2Fp7vJD4E

    These were violent times, when people killed each other with sharp rocks.

    I know people do, and have done, all kinds of horrible things to each other, but I do not want those images in my head, nor do I need to actually see the acts to be motivated to help (Darfur). How do you sleep at night once you see this stuff? How do you turn it off?

    ReplyDelete
  14. re: Keith's comment, I do not believe that your average Mayan or Aztec knew the astronomical calendar. These things were the secrets of the priests, who told them when to plant, harvest, etc. The priest and royalty knew of the eclipse, and staged the sacrifices to convince the population that they had appeased their god (Kukulkan, I believe).

    As for the cities being clean, it seemed that this particular city was on the verge of collapsing (due to plague, drought, and tribal warfare).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous2:08 PM

    Gibson's message is about the moral poverty of the tribes and native peoples before the Europeans brought them to Christianity. Gibson is saying "they're not called savages for nothing - here I'll show you."

    And as John has found, when your nose is rubbed in enough close-up violence and base brutality, you start to respond with your gut rather than with your brain. If he'd have made a film appealing to the intellect that the Conquistadors did the natives a big favor, he'd have had a harder time winning John over.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Am currently wrasslin' with the idea of wanting to see a potentially interesting film set in ancient Mesoamerica, and not wanting to contribute much to lining Mel's pockets.

    Easy. See it at a multiplex that is showing a film maker you want to support, buy a ticket for his or her film, and then go see Apocalypto instead.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous3:30 PM

    Me personally?
    Why not?

    The day I found myself in a fetal position in my theater seat, tears streaming down my face during Apocalypse Now was the last day I went willingly to a graphically violent film. That was 25+ years ago and I still sometimes flash back to some of those scenes when I'm drifting off to sleep at night.

    It doesn't bother me that such films exist-- I mean, obviously, plenty of folks enjoy them, and make it through life just fine with these images etched in their minds; I just don't understand how.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous5:38 AM

    "I am assuming here that your experience of indigenous hunters is limited to having seen Daniel Day-Lewis in "The Last of the Mohicans"

    Um, no, actually it came from a seven year study of ancient religions and matriarchial cultures.

    So nice of you to insult, but my opinion is my own, and is not diminished by your lack of civility.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous9:27 PM

    Gibson's message is about the moral poverty of the tribes and native peoples before the Europeans brought them to Christianity. Gibson is saying "they're not called savages for nothing - here I'll show you."

    This is exactly and completely right.

    Sorry, but masterwork? No. Not to say there weren't pluses: some great action sequences, some fabulous performances, you do have to give a few points for it being filmed in Mayan.

    Too much cheese, though. Bad, insulting r-word type of cheese. Hate to say it, but I think it has to be said:

    1. The portrayal of the Mayan city as a great writhing mass of unrelieved atrocity and callousness from top to bottom was way, way over-the-top, even if you grant that this is supposed to have been taking place at a moment of crisis. It set off my "insulting pastiche of caricatures" alarm bells, and apparently I'm not the only one. Mayan religion did involve sacrifice, but I've never seen anything to suggest the Auschwitz / Killing Fields-style vibe that Gibson goes for.

    2. How exactly are Jaguar Paw's villagers totally unaware of this enormous metropolis just over a day's march away?

    3. The scene that ends the final chase? Stupidest historical cameo fucking ever. Like having the Nazis show up in a movie about the American Revolution. Completely stupid, and unnecessary.

    This is a film out of the 1930s, made with the most sumptuous technology available at the turn of the 21st. It's a really low, vicious piece of work with a few positive elements that, unfortunately, don't redeem it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. OK haters, lets back up a bit. minor spoilers

    A) You can't say it's about the white man coming and saving the savages from themselves when Mel Gibson has said on multiple occasions he made it as an alegory for what he thinks is happening in America today (specifically with Iraq).

    Just out of curiousity would you like the movie if someone had told you it had a liberal point of view beforehand?

    B) Most people loved the ending because, well, they didn't see that coming. But you know historically that it was. So you should have. Hence, John's reference to unexpected but inevitable.

    C) Before we start complaining about how many people were actually sacraficed or the cleanliness of the Mayan cities, why don't we point out the fact that the guy took an arrow through the kidney and was fit as a fiddle after stuffing some bark in the hole. Or the fact that, unless there's something I don't know about Mayan physiology, the rain would have been the best thing in the world for his wife and kid. They could have floated right out of that well. I'm not even going to mention the fact that this primative tribe built a spring loaded spike trap out of bone, wood and tendons when a simple pit would have been more effective.

    But you see, it's a movie. That makes it an emotional, not an intelectual, excercise. And a guy having his whole world captured, killed, raped and burned by people wielding the equivalent of sharpened baseball bats is pretty emotionally charging for me.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous4:20 PM

    whaledawg says: You can't say it's about the white man coming and saving the savages from themselves. . .

    Actually, you can. Gibson may have intended it as some kind of intricate commentary on this or that, and one may or may not choose to believe him, but the film itself works independently of his intentions. If the most plausible reading of a film conflicts with what Gibson says he was trying to do, so much the worse for what Gibson says.

    Just out of curiousity would you like the movie if someone had told you it had a liberal point of view beforehand?

    I personally don't care about a "liberal point of view" in a film -- I care about an entertaining, non-bullshit point of view that doesn't insult me.

    Most people loved the ending because, well, they didn't see that coming.

    Nor should they. Because it's stupid. It's like having the Visigoths show up to sack Rome in a movie about Julius Caesar. You "know historically" that this happens eventually, but a director who just has to work it into Caesar's story is second-rate.

    (Actually, Gibson has a bit of wriggle-room here because it's impossible to tell when his story is supposed to be set. The Maya city in it is never named and has virtually none of the characteristics of historical Maya cities; maybe it's 16th century Tulum he's mangling instead of the Classical city-states. I guess that could be a sort of defense-by-general-crappiness.)

    . . . why don't we point out the fact that the guy took an arrow through the kidney and was fit as a fiddle after stuffing some bark in the hole. Or the fact that, unless there's something I don't know about Mayan physiology, the rain would have been the best thing in the world for his wife and kid.

    That's just generic action-movie stupidity. It's silly, but it's not racism.

    But you see, it's a movie. That makes it an emotional, not an intelectual, excercise.

    Sorry, I have an emotional reaction to having my intelligence insulted by racist drivel. This is like saying "why gripe about the verisimilitude of the Negroes in Birth of a Nation, it's just a movie."

    And a guy having his whole world captured, killed, raped and burned by people wielding the equivalent of sharpened baseball bats is pretty emotionally charging for me.

    Of course it is. That's the whole point of evil, morally bankrupt savages as a literary device. What's handy about the Mayans for Mel's purposes is that they don't have an Anti-Defamation League to call him out for using them as that kind of fodder.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous2:06 PM

    THE SOUNDTRACK IS WHAT GRAPS YOU INTO EACH SCENE, IT MAKES THE MOVIE COMPLETE!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous6:32 AM

    Penyakit ini umumnya muncul karena penderita mengejan terlalu keras pada saat buang air besar. Dengan mengejan terlalu keras, maka pembuluh darah di sekitar anus dapat melebar dan pecah menimbulkan infeksi dan pembengkakan yang berakhir pada masalah wasir atau ambeien tersebut.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Penyakit kencing nanah bisa disebabkan oleh beberapa faktor seperti seks bebas, penularan, virus hpv, lingkungan, gaya hidup dan lainnya, Maka dari itu kita harus waspada dengan penyakit kencing nanah ini, karena penyakit kencing nanah sangatlah berbahaya, Namun untuk anda yang menderita penyakit kencing nanah, maka anda tidak perlu khawatir,

    ReplyDelete
  25. Bukan hanya pengobatan medis saja tapi ada juga pengobatan rumah alami yang dapat digunakan untuk menyingkirkan penyakit kencing bernanah ini. Maka anda harus mencari pengobatan yang terbaik pada penyakit Anda dan jika diperlukan juga dibantu dengan tenaga medis yang professional.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sekitar Vagina Tumbuh Daging, Berbahayakah? Kutil Pada Kepala Penis mirip bunga kol atau jengger ayam, Merupakan Penyakit Yang diakibatkan Oleh Virus.Kutil kelamin, atau disebut juga condyloma acuminata, adalah kutil atau daging berwarna kulit atau keabuan yang tumbuh di sekitar alat kelamin dan

    ReplyDelete
  27. penyakit yang ditularkan melalui hubungan seks : vaginal, oral dan anal. Juga dapat menular melalui persentuhan kulit dengan daerah yang terinfeksi.

    ReplyDelete