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
What I got was the crystalisation of one of the themes. A small civilisation being taken over by a larger, more brutal one.
I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe
On the contrary! The story is that the conquistadors had it easy because the nation was already in turmoil, also many if not most natives died from the diseases the Europeans brought with them. I've read the book long time ago, and it casts a bad light on the natives, them being human sacrificing savages and conquistadors glorious liberators.
So... both were corrupt, but the story is told from the eyes of the peaceful forest folk. If I had to choose I'd chose them, and the movie wants us to make that choice.
Europeans didn't invent the wheel, they got that from others. The Native Americans were isolated from the rest of the world, the Old World wasn't. The wheel was invented for practical reasons, for animal labor. The Americas didn't have these domesticated animals that could be used for labor like the Old World had. Also, Native Americans did have the wheel but they were isolated in their toys or such, not for animal labor.
Another thing, the Chinese didn't invent the rudder. Austronesians were using rudders and sails thousands of years before the Chinese did. It's more likely the Chinese got the rudder from Austronesians when they entered China.
Technologically primitive with complex structures, irrigation system, a more accurate calendar, and advanced astronomical knowledge like knowing the existence of Pluto when the West only discovered that in the early 20th century.
Yeah, primitive indeed.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel
Europeans didn't invent the wheel, they got that from others. The Native Americans were isolated from the rest of the world, the Old World wasn't. The wheel was invented for practical reasons, for animal labor. The Americas didn't have these domesticated animals that could be used for labor like the Old World had. Also, Native Americans did have the wheel but they were isolated in their toys or such, not for animal labor.
Another thing, the Chinese didn't invent the rudder. Austronesians were using rudders and sails thousands of years before the Chinese did. It's more likely the Chinese got the rudder from Austronesians when they entered China.
Technologically primitive with complex structures, irrigation system, a more accurate calendar, and advanced astronomical knowledge like knowing the existence of Pluto when the West only discovered that in the early 20th century.
Yeah, primitive indeed.
and advanced astronomical knowledge like knowing the existence of Pluto when the West only discovered that in the early 20th century.
Just because it's not visible to the naked eye, it doesn't make it impossible to know it's existence, lol.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel
Yes, it is. I guess one could make an argument for Uranus, which is on the border of visibility, but nevertheless wasn't recognised as a planet until the 18th century.
Pluto, however, is a complete impossibility for any ancient civilisation.
There are still a lot of Native Americans or Mayans left in Mexico or S/C America.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel
The people who take that stance are people with set preconceived notions and biased against Mel based solely on their opinions of Passion of the Christ. People who believe Jews as a whole are presented as villains in the film yet these same people fail to realize plenty of good Jews were shown in the film as well. Also these very same people have no qualms in portraying NAZI Germans or Pharoic Egypt as villains in period films.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel
I disagree vehemently with Gibson on some things political. But I am able to separate politics and art. Apocalypto is a racist atrocity if you go into the movie expecting racism. If you go into it with an open mind it is a very good movie.
I really thought the acquisition of sacrificial victims, along with the 'show' they put on when they sacrifice them is in a symbolic way critical of all organized belief systems.
I was kind of surprised to be seeing this as Mel is so vocal about his faith. Perhaps he considers his own faith uncorrupted. And the other faiths or belief systems as crude and mercenary.
Visually the movie is well executed, and I'd say well acted considering the lack of exposition by regular speech.
According to the ill little girl's prophecy, everyone's end is near. Mr. Gibson has used weird children in films before, as a "Greek chorus" device.
NO WHERE in the film does it say that the Europeans were there to save them.
It is the end----hence the title.
"A stitch in time, saves your embarrassment." (RIP Ms. Penny LoBello)
I think all civilizations where violent and blood thirsty back then, no I wouldn't say its controversial, there is nothing controversial about historical facts.
I am the son of a man named Tom.