Apocalpto

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by troutman

Would you say the same about openly Christian artists (ex Bob Dylan, Prince)? Why or why not?

I guess it's a double standard but no, I wouldn't say the same about openly Christian artists. I actually own Slow Train Coming. I also have a few Carter Family albums and they were really down with the king.

Christian rock on the other hand...

I don't know what it is about scientology, but it's really weird. So are the other ones of course, but we're used to those.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by troutman

Can you seperate the art from the artist?

With some I can, with some I can't....there really is no rule.

But in terms of christianity v. scientology, I guess in many ways I can relate to someone like Johnny Cash singing about being down and out and looking for spiritual guidance more so than I can to someone like Tom Cruise yammering on about the mothership. I'm not a greatly religious person, but one just seems to be less relevant and legitimate to me, to a point where I find it to be a pretty big character flaw.

[troutman]

Vincent 'Vinnie' Barbarino: What? Where?

Vincent 'Vinnie' Barbarino: Up your nose with a rubber hose!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by troutman

Vincent 'Vinnie' Barbarino: What? Where?

Vincent 'Vinnie' Barbarino: Up your nose with a rubber hose!

See now that was funny. Saturday Night Fever was good for kitsch value as well. Pulp Fiction was obviously a great movie. But ever since he started babbling about their crazy religion and making Battlefield Earth (penned by Hubbard of course) and other atrocious movies (that I didn't see either)I just can't stand to look at him.

[troutman]

1st in weekend box-office. $14 million.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=apocalypto.htm

I might go see it tonight.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I just finished writing my review of Apocalypto for the Iowa City Press-Citizen. I was going to post it--but it would end up being the longest post in history, so I'll just link it when it's up on the web in a couple of days. I have to admit to not having loved this movie--I thought it was pretty preachy and heavy-handed, and the goriness of it is actually pretty nauseating.

[troutman]

I finally saw it last night. The movie is skillfully made. The costumes, sets and photography will win Oscars. The story and action is exciting - you will not be bored for a second.

Not too accurate on the historical side.

Quite violent - although I enjoyed it, I'm not sure that I would want to watch it a second time.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by troutman

I finally saw it last night. The movie is skillfully made. The costumes, sets and photography will win Oscars. The story and action is exciting - you will not be bored for a second.

Not too accurate on the historical side.

Quite violent - although I enjoyed it, I'm not sure that I would want to watch it a second time.

Yeah--in researching my article I came across a lot of pretty pointed criticism of its historical accuracy. A few gaffes--

The "prophecy girl" seems to be dying of smallpox. But smallpox was introduced by the Europeans, who don't arrive until the end of the movie.

Mayan culture is pretty much characterized by cruelty and mass human sacrifice. Human sacrifice on that scale was carried out by the Aztecs, not the Mayans.

The "authentic" language used is Modern Yucatac, not Ancient Maya (though I think Gibson can probably be forgiven for this--circumstances being what they are in the "Ancient Mayan actor's Guild." )

It does seem like Gibson repeatedly confuses the Mayans with the Aztecs--which may seem like hair-splitting to us, but some archeologists are pretty peeved about it.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It does seem like Gibson repeatedly confuses the Mayans with the Aztecs--which may seem like hair-splitting to us, but some archeologists are pretty peeved about it.

Hey he was probably hammered when he was making the movie. When you've been drinking for two straight years it's easy to adopt the attitude of Mayans, Aztecs, same thing.

[Sainters7]

Haha damn I thought this thread was gonna be about the movie. Ive read the first full page and have given up trying to find someone's thoughts on the movie, as there isnt one. This thread title should be changed to "Mel Gibson's drunken rant". Maybe I just gave up on the thread too early.

EDIT: Just saw page 3 had some stuff on the movie. Sounds interesting for an ancient history nerd like myself...thats really funny about the confusing of the Maya/Aztec stuff. I just took an Arky course this semester and we studied those two groups extensively. Lots of differences between them. I'll probably get a laugh out of the mixing of the two by Gibson.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

Haha damn I thought this thread was gonna be about the movie. Ive read the first full page and have given up trying to find someone's thoughts on the movie, as there isnt one. This thread title should be changed to "Mel Gibson's drunken rant". Maybe I just gave up on the thread too early.

Yeah, I think so. Here's one example from troutman:

The movie is skillfully made. The costumes, sets and photography will win Oscars. The story and action is exciting - you will not be bored for a second.

Not too accurate on the historical side.

Quite violent - although I enjoyed it, I'm not sure that I would want to watch it a second time.

There are others, too. I think we can all be forgiven for getting our shots in at old Mel along the way, though.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Yeah, I think so. Here's one example from troutman:


There are others, too. I think we can all be forgiven for getting our shots in at old Mel along the way, though.

Haha oh yeah, I hope it didnt sound like I was trying to defend the Mel-ster there. I was just laughin at how quickly the thread got sidetracked. btw I did notice some of the reviews on page 3 of this thread. Sounds like it's right up my alley. I was supposed to see it last weekend but my gf(who hates violence in movies) caught the rating of the movie in the paper while checking for showtimes(exreme violence, excessive gore), and buckled haha. Maybe this weekend...

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

Haha oh yeah, I hope it didnt sound like I was trying to defend the Mel-ster there. I was just laughin at how quickly the thread got sidetracked. btw I did notice some of the reviews on page 3 of this thread. Sounds like it's right up my alley. I was supposed to see it last weekend but my gf(who hates violence in movies) caught the rating of the movie in the paper while checking for showtimes(exreme violence, excessive gore), and buckled haha. Maybe this weekend...

My advice is don't take the girlfriend to see this one. There's tons of brutality to children, babies and women, along with extremely disturbing scenes of torture and violence. She won't like it. While I was at Apocalypto, my wife saw The Holiday. That's the way to do it--they're even about the same length.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

My advice is don't take the girlfriend to see this one. There's tons of brutality to children, babies and women, along with extremely disturbing scenes of torture and violence. She won't like it. While I was at Apocalypto, my wife saw The Holiday. That's the way to do it--they're even about the same length.

But then who am I supposed to make sarcastic remarks to during the movie?

Yeah Ill probably just take one of the boys to go see it.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The "prophecy girl" seems to be dying of smallpox. But smallpox was introduced by the Europeans, who don't arrive until the end of the movie.

IIRC smallpox spread quickly shorty after the first europeans arrived and decimated native populations deep inland long before the europeans ever physically arrived in those areas (Some believe 90% of the original population in North America died before the Europeans physically arrived in their area).

So it may be a gaffe but it may not be (I haven't seen the movie so I can't say).

(See Jared Diamonds Guns, Germs and Steel).

And what is with Mel's obsession with gruesome, gratiutous gore? That dude has problems on many levels...you should read his playboy interview...NASTY

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

IIRC smallpox spread quickly shorty after the first europeans arrived and decimated native populations deep inland long before the europeans ever physically arrived in those areas (Some believe 90% of the original population in North America died before the Europeans physically arrived in their area).

So it may be a gaffe but it may not be (I haven't seen the movie so I can't say).

(See Jared Diamonds Guns, Germs and Steel).

And what is with Mel's obsession with gruesome, gratiutous gore? That dude has problems on many levels...you should read his playboy interview...NASTY

Really? The course I took was only a 100 level, so maybe we just didnt get into it enough. But my understanding was smallpox only became a problem once the Spaniards came and settled there, who would lay out blankets for the natives which were purposely covered in smallpox, in an effort to wipe out the tribes.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Wikipedia to the rescue

Smallpox and The Americas
After first contacts with Europeans and Africans, the death of a large part of the native population of the New World was caused by Old World diseases. Smallpox was the chief culprit.
In 1519 Hernán Cortés landed on the shores of what is now Mexico and was then the Aztec empire. In 1520 another group of Spanish came from Cuba and landed in Mexico. Among them was an African slave who had smallpox. When Cortés heard about the other group, he went and defeated them. In this contact, one of Cortés’ men contracted the disease. When Cortés returned to Tenochtitlan, he brought the disease with him.
Soon, the Aztecs rose up in rebellion against Cortés. Outnumbered, the Spanish were forced to flee. In the fighting, the Spanish soldier carrying smallpox died. After the battle, the Aztecs contracted the virus from the invaders’ bodies. Cortes would not return to the capital until August 1521. In the meantime smallpox devastated the Aztec population. It killed most of the Aztec army, the emperor, and 25% of the overall population. A Spanish priest left this description: “As the Indians did not know the remedy of the disease…they died in heaps, like bedbugs. In many places it happened that everyone in a house died and, as it was impossible to bury the great number of dead, they pulled down the houses over them so that their homes become their tombs.” On Cortés’ return, he found the Aztec army’s chain of command in ruins. The soldiers who lived were still weak from the disease. Cortés then easily defeated the Aztecs and entered Tenochtitlán, where he found that smallpox had killed more Aztecs than had the cannons. The Spaniards said that they could not walk through the streets without stepping on the bodies of smallpox victims.
The effects of smallpox on Tahuantinsuyu (or the Inca empire) were even more devastating. Beginning in Colombia, smallpox spread rapidly before the Spanish invaders first arrived in the empire. The spread was probably aided by the efficient Inca road system. Within months, the disease had killed the Sapa Inca Huayna Capac, his successor, and most of the other leaders. Two of his surviving sons warred for power and, after a bloody and costly war, Atahualpa become the new Sapa Inca. As Atahualpa was returning to the capital Cuzco, Francisco Pizarro arrived and through a series of deceits captured the young leader and his best general. Within a few years smallpox claimed between 60% and 90% of the Inca population, with other waves of European disease weakening them further. However, some historians think a serious native disease called Bartonellosis may have been responsible for some outbreaks of illness.
Even after the two mighty empires of the Americas were defeated by the virus, smallpox continued its march of death. In 1633 in Plymouth, Massachusetts, the Native Americans were struck by the virus. As it had done elsewhere, the virus wiped out entire population groups of Native Americans. It reached Lake Ontario in 1636, and the lands of the Iroquois by 1679, killing millions. The worst sequence of smallpox attacks took place in Boston, Massachusetts. From 1636 to 1698, Boston endured six epidemics. In 1721, the most severe epidemic occurred. The entire population fled the city, bringing the virus to the rest of the Thirteen Colonies. In the late 1770s, during the American Revolutionary War, smallpox returned once more and killed an estimated 125,000 people.[7]

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Wikipedia to the rescue

Smallpox and The Americas
After first contacts with Europeans and Africans, the death of a large part of the native population of the New World was caused by Old World diseases. Smallpox was the chief culprit.
In 1519 Hernán Cortés landed on the shores of what is now Mexico and was then the Aztec empire. In 1520 another group of Spanish came from Cuba and landed in Mexico. Among them was an African slave who had smallpox. When Cortés heard about the other group, he went and defeated them. In this contact, one of Cortés’ men contracted the disease. When Cortés returned to Tenochtitlan, he brought the disease with him.
Soon, the Aztecs rose up in rebellion against Cortés. Outnumbered, the Spanish were forced to flee. In the fighting, the Spanish soldier carrying smallpox died. After the battle, the Aztecs contracted the virus from the invaders’ bodies. Cortes would not return to the capital until August 1521. In the meantime smallpox devastated the Aztec population. It killed most of the Aztec army, the emperor, and 25% of the overall population. A Spanish priest left this description: “As the Indians did not know the remedy of the disease…they died in heaps, like bedbugs. In many places it happened that everyone in a house died and, as it was impossible to bury the great number of dead, they pulled down the houses over them so that their homes become their tombs.” On Cortés’ return, he found the Aztec army’s chain of command in ruins. The soldiers who lived were still weak from the disease. Cortés then easily defeated the Aztecs and entered Tenochtitlán, where he found that smallpox had killed more Aztecs than had the cannons. The Spaniards said that they could not walk through the streets without stepping on the bodies of smallpox victims.
The effects of smallpox on Tahuantinsuyu (or the Inca empire) were even more devastating. Beginning in Colombia, smallpox spread rapidly before the Spanish invaders first arrived in the empire. The spread was probably aided by the efficient Inca road system. Within months, the disease had killed the Sapa Inca Huayna Capac, his successor, and most of the other leaders. Two of his surviving sons warred for power and, after a bloody and costly war, Atahualpa become the new Sapa Inca. As Atahualpa was returning to the capital Cuzco, Francisco Pizarro arrived and through a series of deceits captured the young leader and his best general. Within a few years smallpox claimed between 60% and 90% of the Inca population, with other waves of European disease weakening them further. However, some historians think a serious native disease called Bartonellosis may have been responsible for some outbreaks of illness.
Even after the two mighty empires of the Americas were defeated by the virus, smallpox continued its march of death. In 1633 in Plymouth, Massachusetts, the Native Americans were struck by the virus. As it had done elsewhere, the virus wiped out entire population groups of Native Americans. It reached Lake Ontario in 1636, and the lands of the Iroquois by 1679, killing millions. The worst sequence of smallpox attacks took place in Boston, Massachusetts. From 1636 to 1698, Boston endured six epidemics. In 1721, the most severe epidemic occurred. The entire population fled the city, bringing the virus to the rest of the Thirteen Colonies. In the late 1770s, during the American Revolutionary War, smallpox returned once more and killed an estimated 125,000 people.[7]

haha Id love to read all that, but Im actually studying for a History final I have tomorrow as we speak. That will throw all the dates Im memorizing off in my head. I get the jist though.

btw we shouldve had this convo last semester when I was taking that class. If you posted that the day before the test I wouldve been thrilled, as it was a big part of the test.

[troutman]

The classic Mayan civilization collapsed in 900 AD, so it's crazy that the Europeans are arriving at the end of the movie. About 600 years too early.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by troutman

The classic Mayan civilization collapsed in 900 AD, so it's crazy that the Europeans are arriving at the end of the movie. About 600 years too early.

Yup. And they migrated south even before the civilization collapsed. The people Cortez encountered were Aztecs, not Mayans, which is one of the big historical problems with this movie.

But it's all in the service of having the Europeans come as a signal of what the "new beginning" will be after the Mayan civilization collapses. Remember the epigraph from W. Durant at the start of the film? "A civilization cannot be conquered from without until it has first defeated itself from within." The story's basically about one society's decadent collapse, and another society that arrives (carrying crucifixes and looking stately) to sort things out and provide a new paradigm.

That's why it's calle "Apocalypto" and not "The Story of Jaguar Paw" or some such thing.