Some critics seem to think so. According to some, the depiction of the Mayans as violent, blood-thirsty, superstitious savages and the arrival of the Spanish Conquistadors at the end of the film to save them are to be understood as proof of the moral superiority of the Europeans, and therefore detrimental towards the Mayans. What do you think?
Read my thoughts on this great film at:
http://wp.me/p38pht-Fq
...and the arrival of the Spanish Conquistadors at the end of the film to save them are to be understood as proof of the moral superiority of the Europeans...
Few examples:
The film opens with a quote about the Roman empire from Will Durant: "A great civilisation is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." In other words, Apocalypto blames the Mayan people for being conquered. (by Alex von Tunzelmann, The Guardian)
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 deserve, in fact they needed, rescue. (by Traci Ardren, Archaeology)
As I keep this in mind, I reflect on the ending of “Apocalypto” when fair-skinned and bearded Spaniards arrive with ships and a wooden cross. They are portrayed in an innocent and unapologetic light, as if they are, indeed, arriving to save the Mayans. (Muslim Reverie)
Ricardo,
So, after your reply with the quotes from others, I went back and read your thoughts linked in the OP.
I generally agree with you (I haven't seen Passion, though.)
In my opinion, anybody who actually watches the film and comes away with the idea that it is promoting some idea of European/Christian superiority is either nuts or has a chip on their shoulder before the movie starts.
Does it address the idea of a once-great civilization in critical decline? Yep, that is the point. The applicability of that idea is pointed towards our current civilization.
When the movie gets to the penultimate scene and we see the Spanish coming ashore, my personal reaction is not "Ah, the good guys are going to set things right," but much more along the lines of "Now they're all screwed." Just having a general knowledge of the history of the continent, I can know that the decline we see depicted in the middle of the movie is going to become obliteration. It's not just; it's not unjust. It is simply the Passing of the Age.
"Morbius, something is approaching from the southwest. It is now quite close."
Harold_of_Whoa, great words. I particularly like the just and unjust part and the link with our civilization. It is nice indeed when someone uses their critical abilities without throwing tantrums or trying to offend. That is, when someone really is interested in discussing films. Great talking to you. Cheers, man. Ricardo.
shareThe final scene closes with Jaguar Paw's wife looking down at the three galleons in the bay below, and asking what they should do. Jaguar Paw says 'Go back to the Forest.' The brutal Conquistadores weren't 'the answer' to Mayan collapse, but an even worse threat.
shareI loved the ending, because it gives a sense of "a greater antagonist". The struggles between mayan clans and villages now means nothing cause they have a greatest threat to fight. Regarding to the critics thoughts about the so called "meaning" of the movie, i think they are just exposing they own prejudices about The Good Indigenous victimized people and The Bad Spaniard Conquerors. A majority of the public see this dicotomy under the veil of our own actual human rights and contemporary way of thinking. Now we see that a lot of things that happened in that historical moment were wrong, as well as a lot of things that happened in other cultures and civilizations in other eras. Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Persian, Mayan, Aztec, were cultures and civilizations that acted according to their own cosmovision, we can´t stand and say they were acting right or wrong cause they were just doing what they thought was the best at that time. As well as we can´t say all those cultures were all good and innocent.
sharean offensive and racist notion that Maya people were brutal to one another long before the arrival of Europeans and thus they deserve, in fact they needed, rescue. (by Traci Ardren, Archaeology)
No
shareYes,
I felt while watching this that it was essentially the plot of the Naked Prey with some anti-heathen stuff thrown in - no negs on the Spaniards who were coming to save them from themselves
The biggest plot hole was the bad guys chasing him into the forest.
They broke their own code - he was supposed to be free. I guess this showed that that tribe were not civilized. In most societies, a promise like that is not meant to be broken - the Naked Prey was loosely based on a true story
I won't even discuss his out running the black leopard while injured
I wonder why they did not show what happened to the 2 warriors when they met the foreigners. The protagonist did not seem in awe of their majesty, just their threat
The naked prey was much more consistent and there was respect on both ends at the end.
I was also bemused by the translation of one line in the movie to "he's *beep* - it did not seem necessary and I actually went back to look at it.
Enjoyable movie - liked plot of Naked Prey better, this cinematography was fantastic
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
The arrival of the Spanish to me is the saddest part of the movie. What the Spanish did was make things even worse, not only by introducing disease but by pitting the Mayans against each other, accelerating their demise.
share[deleted]
Evolutionary superior species huh? So according to you Native Americans are a different species?
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel
[deleted]
[deleted]
Controversial? Only for those who have weird personal agendas against the genius filmmaker or the historical events depicted fictionally or against showing the depth and complexity of relations among the peoples in pre Colombian America... Brilliant and exciting film told from the viewpoint of the people themselves not Hollywood's perception of them.
shareI don't think the arrival of the conquistador's was meant to be interpreted as saving the mayan's, but instead it showed that the demise of the civilization was near which is why they retreated into their home, the jungle.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
OP, you entirely misunderstand the purpose or suggestion ofthe quotes and the imagery that appear in the film. It has been mentioned by Mel Gibson and clearly appears as a theme that criticizes human nature in general and that such violence as depicted is something that happens in any civilization and is a reflection on human condition.
Almost nobody would question the fact that the conquistadores have done a lot of violent or immoral acts. It goes without saying. The imagery of the film clearly suggests that any violent people who may be enjoying a position in which they have some superiority whether resource based, or technological, can very quickly be in the position of those whom they recently have oppressed and that they will be oppressed by someone bigger stronger and "badder".
Some aspects of he film suggest that above is the case because the people we see in the beginning of the film, the small tribe that is small and supports itself by hunting and gathering inside the jungle are not portrayed as immoral as the Mayans, so there would be no point assuming that the arriving Spanish at bringing some ideology or culture whose aspects aren't already visible in high contrast in the conflict of the two groups of people who are native.
We also do not see the survivors of the tribe at the end of the film run toward the Spanish or assume that Spanish are their salvation. Instead they run deeper into the jungle, which means that they have reason to suspect from their own experience that the new people could be just as violent. Comparing that to the Mayans who walk toward the ships and who will (according to history) believe that Europeans are Gods, but who actually end up being false Gods who will have oppressed the Mayans the same way as Mayans oppressed the jungle tribe, we can see that what is suggested is not moral superiority of arriving Europeans but rather a kind of poetic unpredictable justice.
Some critics seem to think so. According to some, the depiction of the Mayans as violent, blood-thirsty, superstitious savages and the arrival of the Spanish Conquistadors at the end of the film to save them are to be understood as proof of the moral superiority of the Europeans, and therefore detrimental towards the Mayans. What do you think?
Yes this. Mayans were violent and slaughtered each other. In their temple, there was a bag of dehydrated human hearts, thousands. Then the Spaniards showed up looking for gold. Better? Nobody thinks so. The line between good and evil runs through the middle of every human heart. Great quote although gross in this context.
share[deleted]
in the Classical Era...In other words, Mayan culture went through eras where they were builders and eras when they were violent destroyers. Good grief, you look it up.
share[deleted]
Ah the "Classical Era" again. When the Maya built their pyramids. And the rest? When they cut the hearts out of tens of thousands of humans? You wish to excuse this? You are on your own. There is no excuse for that.
share[deleted]
No evidence, you are the fool. There is plenty of evidence. Once again, you appear to want to excuse massive human sacrifice. Once again, you are on your own.
share[deleted]
The hero of this movie, Jaguar Paw--his basic humanity and human decency are manifest. He loves his family and supports his community. He is no different than you or I, except perhaps more courageous. His depiction evokes in all of us the hope that, were we in the same circumstances, we could have acted as he did.
The evil overlords of this movie are no different than evil overlords anywhere. They are at the top of the political food chain, complete with a secret police force. They use violence, fear, and intimidation to stay in power. Once again, the same as anywhere.
The Spaniards showing up at the end of the movie is the opposite of a rescue. The movie makes this clear. Here come the new evil overlords with their own brand of violence. We know for a fact that the new evil overlords will not care one wit about Jaguar Paw and his decency.
If there is any controversy, it is the hope of redemption. The Maya needed it, the Spanish needed it, we all need it. That is a controversial statement with which many disagree. The controversy is nothing new. If there is a message at the end, I am pretty sure this is what Gibson meant to convey.
[deleted]
It is hard to take that article even remotely seriously beyond an overly defensive reaction to their area of interest. Frankly, Traci Arden appears outright foolish in this writing.
The jungles look too pretty?
The people are too pretty?
Five actors were not actually Mayan?
Comparisons of modern (post-industrial revolution) pollution to what the Maya produced?
Has the author never seen a Hollywood film, or did they think Braveheart was a historically accurate depiction of history?
The author's argument are so terrible as to bring their own intellect into question.
[deleted]
Firstly, your making a straw-man argument. The critic cited the factors I listed above as problems with the film. No mentioned cop-out of truth, or anything to that effect, except you. Misrepresenting my comments is not an effective argument technique.
The criticisms are preposterous, and particularly the complaints of too much aesthetic appeal ... they arguably apply to every single Hollywood film ever produced.
Do you really feel Tombstone accurately portrays the events depicted?
Did you think Full Metal Jacket was good vehicle for understanding the experience of soldiers in Vietnam?
Were you not the slightest bit uncomfortable watching so many die on the beaches of Normandy during Saving Private Ryan?
Did you complain that Selma represented LBJ as an opponent to the Civil Rights movement?
How about the terrible rape scenes of so many real-world-based prison films?
This entire line of argument is absurd to my mind, and failing to complain of all such instances smacks of hypocrisy fueled either by sensitivity in particular the group(s) in question or hostility to the parties involved (i.e. Mel Gibson).
I'm curious what films you do think are accurate and good portrayals of real-world events? Please list a few so that I may better understand your position. Keep in mind, no documentaries.
[deleted]
Well, let me take another look at the review, and see if I have misinterpreted.
"The thrill of hearing melodic Yucatec Maya spoken by familiar faces (although the five lead actors are not Yucatec Maya but other talented Native American actors)"
Help me here, what is the point of calling attention to the identity of the actors?
"It looks authentic; viewers will be captivated by the crazy, exotic mess of the city and the howler monkeys in the jungle. And who really cares that the Maya were not living in cities when the Spanish arrived?"
That certainly appears to be a complaint regarding historical accuracy and authenticity. What am I misinterpreting here?
"Gibson includes the arrival of clearly Christian missionaries (these guys are too clean to be conquistadors) in the last five minutes of the story (in the real world the Spanish arrived 300 years after the last Maya city was abandoned)."
That isn't a violation of timeline complaint? How do those 300 years strictly affect the aesthetics?
The above are direct, unaltered quotes of the review/diatribe in question. In review, I'm going to have stand by my claims. The author certain does complain about far more, but historical accuracy is amongst the complaints listed.
Never mind the humongous amount of projection regarding the films symbology and the director's intent, the overtly pejorative use of the term "pornography", and the significant citation of contemporary Mayan problems (which have NOTHING to do with the quality of this film).
[deleted]
It looks as though we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I think I've left a strong argument, and I encourage later readers to follow the link and examine the review in debate for themselves.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]