Mel Gibson's new movie: 'Apocalypto'
 

I was torn as to where this should go, but ultimately it's all entertainment I guess.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movi...cnn_topstories

VERACRUZ, Mexico (AP) -- Mel Gibson says a fascination with ancient cultures and great civilizations is what led him to make his upcoming movie "Apocalypto," starring unknown Mexican actors speaking in an ancient tongue.

...more...

I'm actually looking forward to this. If he does Beowulf in Anglo-Saxon next I am so there.

Sorry, for a moment there I thought you said apocalypso

Probably not quite what you're looking for, but at least Neil Gaiman is writing it.

Save the last dance for me.

Angelina Jolie as Grendel's Mother? How appropriate.

Here she is, in costume!

http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/43/...ulf-mask24.jpg

Sorry, Just got the totally unsatisfactory little red cross in the box - sometimes this happens with blog links, you have to be inside the blog provider's site to view the images. Take a screen print of it, dump it in paint box, cut out the image and then paste it again into paintbox and save that as a jpeg - you can then upload it through the 'manage attachments' facility in the Cellar 'post reply' section. A lot easier than it sounds - trust me, I'm an Englishman...!

Heh, I see it fine in Firefox, but not in Internet Explorer. Must be a cache thing.

Here's where the picture's from.

That reminds me - we need some new Christmas tree lights....

I predict this will turn out to be Mr. Gibson's "Waterworld". Apparently he needs to stop thinking of himself as bulletproof, it's time for the fall.

I already know the mythology of the Maya and their predictions of the world ending and being created again several times. The people who can identify with this are few and far between, and they don't go to movies, unlike the millions of radical Christians who The Passion of Christ was sold to. Mel has already had two hurricanes fall on his head and nearly destroy Yucatan; perhaps the Maya gods of the Underworld are trying to tell him something :rolleyes:

I know I hang out in very different circles, but I know more people that will stand in line for Apocalypto than I know will go to see Harry Potter next week.

(for which, incidentally, I already have IMAX tickets. not my fault. friend set it up)

Yes, but Harry Potter's "witchcraft" is not for real either ;) The Maya were and still ARE deadly serious about it. Check out the recent National Geographic article about this, Wolf, they have excellent artwork which portrays some of the more bizarre happenings in the Popul Vuh and photos of a ceremonial site which the photographer was allowed to visit.

I've read all about the Pre-Colombian myths and religions for many years as part of my studies of Latin America, but I doubt the symbolism or the sagas of the Maya will strike a chord in the western world. The main thread that you might be able to relate to is how thin the line is between the living and the dead in both Maya and Aztec cultural practices. But the Maya Land of the Dead is not a happy place that you would want to visit or to have anybody return from to visit you. Death, decay, and rebirth are deeply intertwined in these cultures. Their actual lives are spent under great hardships because of genocidal policies of the Mexican government in the 20th Century and the continued governmental abuses today. The Maya therefore do not have much tolerance for people like Mr. Gibson invading their lands to make movies about them. They also kill tourists down there, entirely too frequently. I just hope some tragedy does not take place because of a senseless misunderstanding of cultural differences while that many Anglos are in the area.

Last time I checked, Mexicans (whether descended from Europeans or natives) were perfectly willing to let anyone "invade" their land to do movies provided enough money flowed to the right people. Somehow I doubt Gibson brought an army in.

There can still be culteral misunderstandings over who are the right people and how much is enough money.

USELESS CELEBRITY FACT No.6

Mel Gibson used to live next door to my boyfriend years and years ago in Coogee (like 25 years ago) Apparently he used to bounce him on his knee on their shared front porch (townhouses).. and one night Mel came home very high and drunk and had no money on him for the cab he had just been dropped home in so knocked on my boyfriends parents door and borrowed $20... which to this day has not been returned!!! (with interest based on income i think i feel a claim coming on...)

Russotto, these are NOT MEXICANS. They do not consider themselves to be part of the country and never did. This is why the Mexican government did their best to wipe the Maya tribes off the face of the earth in the last century. Right now they have a rather active subversion going on down there. Have you ever heard of CHIAPAS? And they do not want our money or anybody else's, they just want to be left alone. Very alone. A respectable and harmless Eco-tourism ranch was closed down in that area and abandoned, under threat of death for all who did not march out when the guerrillas showed up. People who live in those jungles don't just kill you, they torture you and do not leave much to bury. If Mel stays in the part of Yucatan where Merida and Cancun (what's left of it) are, he will be safe. That's where the Federales hang out. But Cancun is not exactly the kind of background he is looking for.

Mel beat our 'Arry - ooooh, I don't think sooooo!

Having caught the promotional stuff on HP latest, it seems to have gone up a few notches on the 'reel 'em in' stakes. Quidditch World Cup, Dragons, and entering a much darker phase with superior CG stuff - all look like they will pull the crowds in even more. Shame that Robert Rankin (Apocalypso et al) writes such wierd stuff that any attempt at conversion on to film would cause any director to freak out well before completion.

Cyclefrance, go back and read Wolf's post again. :eyebrow:

To revive this old thread . . .

Who has seen it? What did you think? Why isn't anyone talking about it?

Where I am, it has become the most hated movie of the century.

Am I the only one who thought it was brilliant?

I am hoping to get out to see it, but with holiday madness and work madness I have not had time.

Native Americans are pretty P.O.'d. I've seen some very long screeds against the film, which are about half "this film sucks" and the other half "Mel Gibson is a racist bastard." The first sin, apparently, is casting a lead from the wrong tribe.

A coworker of mine saw it and was quite bored.

Are you serious? How could anyone be bored?

Oh, I guess they COULD be. It wasn't as fast paced as many movies we are used to. I enjoyed the long segments of watching the people move through the jungle, watching the animals and just feeling very much a part of the scenery.

Yeah, lots of "why didn't they cast a Mayan lead" accusations are being flung around.

I really did love the movie, though, and feel like I'm the ONLY ONE.

I have not had a chance to see it but I'm expecting good things.

Here is a talk with the archaeologist that consulted on the film:

http://www.archaeology.org/0701/etc/conversation.html

Finally, someone who isn't riding the PC bandwagon!

For Mel Gibson, it really IS all about the blood and pain
 

Thank you for posting that article from the Archaeology Magazine, it covers a lot of things I wanted to discuss when I planned to reopen this thread. Unfortunately, the movie has not yet arrived here and I wanted to see it before, but I have seen many interviews with the actors (in Spanish) and quite a few filmclips and read at least 8 reviews that came out during the first week the film was available. It appears that Apocalypto was rushed into release and sent to certain media outlets so that it would make the cut for Oscar nomination, and the rest of us can see it eventually.

First I want to say that this is not going to be an easy movie for most people to watch. Even if you like your blood and guts at horror-movie level, there is no plot to captivate you in between the slaughter. It appears that Mel Gibson took all the FX he learned from making the Passion and brought it to the jungles of Mexico. But this is not gratuitous violence, this is the way these pre-Colombian people really lived. It's not that life was cheap then, they believed your life was borrowed and the marker could be called at any time by those in authority, or the gods, if they needed it. Blood was the food of the gods, and they fed their gods often and heavily.

They had knives made from spalled obsidian and flints, they were sharp as razors and they knew how to use them. Warfare was constant throughout the Maya civilization but RITUALIZED: mostly they had forays into neighboring territories or pissing contests between noble leaders or knights of various power centers where you knocked down and captured somebody on the other side who was then required to present himself for sacrifice at the appropriate time and place. At the time of this movie, the larger cities of the classic period had disappeared several hundred years ago and the civilization was in decline. Far from the romanticized view of the indigenous people living in harmony with the land, the Maya had devastated their environment, were short on food, authority was breaking down, towns were now fighting for total conquest of their neighbors and evidence exists that cannibalism may have been more common than previously believed due to famine. So Mel went to a lot of trouble to research and show the authentic feel of the times; by most accounts he was successful except the historians agree that what he showed at the ending could not possibly have taken place at the time in which he places his story.

No Indians were harmed in the making of this movie, nor were their traditions disrespected. Shamans and elders were consulted, and as told in the Archaeology article, the appropriate politicians were paid off. I have no illusions about how long Mel will be involved in his "improvement of the quality of life" projects in the area, but he did what he had to do and it seems to have turned out well for everybody.

The Indian actors who were interviewed said the makeup crew was all Italians (no doubt Passion veterans). There were communication problems because the cast and supporting actors spoke Spanish or several Meso-American dialects, most of the crew was European, Gibson of course speaks English, you get the picture, but everything was planned pretty well and it all came off in very high quality. During this time, we know there was a serious problem with storms and flooding in the area and Mel had also begun to drink heavily (which culminated with him back in rehab after his embarrassing meltdown during that traffic stop in LA).

The interview with the Indian who plays Jaguar Paw was really interesting. After he got the part, Mel put him on a diet and sent him to the gym to turn his body into what they thought a warrior ought to look like.

The main reason I am looking forward to seeing this movie is because it appears to be authentic. I have been all over that area and the thing that always did not fit in my mind was how it must have looked with all the "average people" living in the areas around the huge ceremonial centers. Those centers and the rulers who had them built were supported by huge numbers of farmers and wood cutters, and finally I will see how it was for them. The Yucatan is not an ideal place to live: the weather is hellish in the summer and hurricanes are always offshore to wipe the place flat, yet the first great North American civilization rose from there. If Mel did his homework as well as they claim, I will really enjoy this movie.

Apocalypto Inacurato Symbolico
 

One should consider the acknowledged influence of Mel's dad, Hutton Gibson. They are ideologically joined at the hip.

http://www.wildfreshness.com/brian/a...ton_gibson.jpg
Mr. Gibson Senior is said to be an "expert" on "The New World Order."

Basically, Gibson, and especially his father, are both somewhat obsessed Catholics that are very much against what they see as our decadent and misguided contemporary culture. Appocalypto is a heavy-handed, cultural critique of today's Western society, especially its pernicious cities.This critique also comes with a prophetic warning regarding "The New World Order." Gibson uses (misuses) Mayan and tribal cultures as a symbolic trope to highlight the government/private sector dichotomy: immoral, greedy government city vs. family-oriented self-sustaining kin group. Gibson doesn't need to be historically or ethnographically accurate with his use of Mayan civilization. He wants to make a point.

Let's listen to his father:

"We're going to have to do something now in this country
because that government is useless. There's a line the
Declaration of Independence where somebody abolishes
or sets aside or misgoverns, it is our privilege the constitution,
it is the people's obligation to abolish that government. I think
there is a way... There is a bloodless way to do it if we can
swing it: secession. Just get all states to secede from the
government and leave it there high and dry. The alternative
is eventually they are going to clamp down on us and we are
going to have the same terror and we are going to have to
revolt with a gun or we are going to face the same (governmental)
terror...We're going to have to do something fairly soon,
because the longer it goes, the more power they get and
the less we have."

It's easy to see how Apocalypto uses the great Mayan city as a symbol of government power run amok. They need sacrifices (taxes) to keep going, and they prey on the innocent (villagers minding their own business) to get what they need to maintain their immoral society. It's actually quite obvious what the Gibson's are trying to tell those willing to go see his work, another reason Mel funds his own movies of late; he controls the message.

http://www.wildfreshness.com/brian/a...apocalypto.jpg
These are the "good" villagers who've yet to be absorbed into the evil city.

http://www.wildfreshness.com/brian/archives/apoc1t.jpg
The evil Mayan city with its overlords (government).

So it should not surprise anyone that Mel and his dad simply "use" Mayan culture to make a point about the coming "New World Order." But some anthropologists and archeologists feel obligated to point out the flaws in their depiction of Mayan culture:

"First, a typical Maya village is shown as an unorganized
group of jungle people who appear to subsist on hunting
alone. The Maya were an agricultural people with a very
structured social and economic system. Even small villages
in the hinterlands of large cities were connected to some
political center. The jungle people in Gibson's movie are
flabbergasted at the sight of the Maya city, exclaiming that
they have never seen such buildings. The truth is, pyramids
of comparable size were never more than 20 kilometers
away from anywhere in the Maya world, be they occupied
or abandoned.

Second, Mayan city people are shown as violent extremists
bent on harvesting innocent villagers to provide flesh for
sacrifice and women for slaves, leaving the children to die
alone in the jungle. Hundreds of men are sacrificed on an
Aztec-style sacrificial stone, their headless bodies thrown
into a giant ditch reminiscent of a Holocaust documentary
or a scene from "The Killing Fields." Problem is, there exists
no archaeological, historic or ethnohistoric data to suggest
that any such mass sacrifices -- numbering in the thousands,
or even hundreds -- took place in the Maya world."

Then there was this college Prof who, to his chagrin, made his class see the movie; here's a clip from the article:

He took issue with the fact that, in his mind, the movie
presents an overly simplified situation that sets up civilization
as evil and unfettered life in the jungle as pure.

"But you learned from this that civilization is bad, and all that
learning stuff is bad, so I hope that you've learned from this
to wander off from Vanderbilt, not even finish your exams and
go off into the woods and hunt pigs sadistically," he told his students.

But again, there is no reason to expect the Gibson's to be true to facts because that's not what they care about. Furthermore, their grasp of just what "history" is as a discipline is a bit shaky:

"There's always this conceit among historians, particularly
European historians, that history only began when they
arrived - which of course is not the case," he said.

"I thought it would be interesting to tell a story that wasn't
from the New World point of view."

All I would say to Mel is that the word "prehistoric" is in our language for a reason; that's why we have archeologists and anthropologists to tell us about the stuff that was not written down by conceited Europeans.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000


http://ww4report.com/node/2898/

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazett...1-df828ce3b880

But, are they wrong?

Yes. The bloodless way to change the government is by voting.

Oh, I'm sorry. I don't actually know what I'm talking about.

Sorry, but in my opinion, this is just a tad overly pejorative. Mel Gibson is an artist, working in a field of art. As with all artists, representation is a matter of opinion, interpretation and choice of what to present in the work of art.

There is not one single historical movie made that is 100% true or accurate, so it feels a little unfair to me to single Gibson out for this particular critique.

Of course the Europeans believe it all started with them. The Arabs all believe it started with them, too. All dominant cultures with long histories will naturally see the world as it relates to them and them alone. This is a sociological fact. Perhaps a necessary fact. It may be what helps a culture to become and remain dominant. It could be called self-confidence, but is usually referred to as arrogance.

I personally don't see why movies like these create such polarization based on "true history" and "fact." There have been so many wonderful movies made based on history with all sorts of composites to represent far more than could ever be presented if we kept it strictly to the facts.

The new CIA movie, "The Good Shepherd," was recently reviewed by an ex-CIA agent and he said pretty much the same thing. That movie follows the spirit of the CIA, if the letter and verse of how it was done. Some things were tweaked for art, some were composites, but by and large it presents the idea it set out to present. I think "Apolcalypto" did the same thing and doesn't deserve the microscope critique it seems to be attracting.

BTW, Tonchi, I like the way you framed and explained the movie the best of anything I've read or seen. When you see the movie, you won't be disappointed!

I am looking forward to seeing it - it looks to be visually stimulating and apparently I can learn a little "wrong history" too. :D

Nah, he is more obsessed with blood and pain than anything else. Anybody who has seen the statues of the martyred saints or crucifixes in the European churches can easily see where THAT comes from :sick:

If Mel were really so worried about the moral decay of the cities typical of our civilization, he would chuck that Hollywood mansion, luxury cars, and hot women he is so fond of and move back to the jungles of New Zealand. THEN we might think he is serious. As for his father, the old Nazi is no more typical of Catholic thought and prophesy than some of the repressed/obsessed early Christian writers are. Nobody would even know he existed if he did not have a rich and famous son. He is the same species as Sly Stallone's mother.

Making (pre) History
 

[Well, my problem here is that we have an "artist" denegrating "historians" in a very broad-brush kind of way. Secondly, the distinction between "history" and '"pre-history" is important to acknowledge. These are certainly problematic terms, but Mel seems to allude to the idea that their is NO difference (kinda like his father with the holocaust).

Also, because I am historian, I'm prone to defend my profession : )

You gotta consider the historians, pre-historians, archeologists, and anthropologists are so immersed in their work that when they see what they consider mis-interpretation, they get mad; they believe, and they may be correct, that the most accurate interpretation would always be more interesting (even with a little embelishment).

[quote]If Mel were really so worried about the moral decay of the cities typical of our civilization, he would chuck that Hollywood mansion, luxury cars, and hot women he is so fond of and move back to the jungles of New Zealand.


Yeah, I thought about that, but considering his behavior in the city, perhaps he's conflicted. He's torn (not Rip Torn). Hypocricy is a symptom of confliction.

Sometimes I forget that we "historians" exist only to defend government control of every aspect of life.

Defend away! :D

I'm definitely not an historian by any means, just a lowly lay person who loves a good discussion. ;)

I keep hearing, though, this claim that it isn't historically accurate, but so far I haven't really gotten a clear description of just what is considered to be inaccurate. From everything I've seen and heard, it is more accurate than, say, the last movie of Joan of Arc I saw.

In one radio talk show I listened to, some Latinos were up in arms because of the human sacrifices, saying that it was completely inaccurate, but having seen temple murals, it seems to me that what was depicted in the movie was pretty accurate. Or at least a fair represenation of the stories the murals tell!

According to one archaelogist, it sounded like there wasn't much to defend, so I would be very interested to hear things from another professional's point of view. I'm a bit tired of listening to the racial arguments. :neutral:

You wanna know about human sacrifices? I can discuss human sacrifices in MesoAmerican cultures for hours and what it all comes down to in the end is these five words: They thought it was necessary. For the end of the 52-year calendar cycle, an Aztec emperor in the 15th century recorded 36,000 sacrifices at the twin-pyramid Templo Mayor in Mexico City. It had to be done in assembly line coordination -plunk and pluck then off the altar and down the stairs as the next body was slung into position - modern historians calculate it must have gone on 24/7 for nearly a year. The gods must have been very pleased, since they did not send the Spaniards during the reign of this ruler. Anybody here who thinks the Tonchi's Manson Bathroom was interesting might like to discuss the Pre-Colombian Peruvian sacrifices with me, where the honoree/victim was first fed a concoction which was a strong anticoagulant so that he would literally bleed for hours, while priests came and went with goblets to be filled up for the ceremony.

No, the issue of making the human sacrifices the centerpiece of the movie being some sort of metaphor for decadence and corruption of government is the REAL historical inaccuracy, if it even exists in Mel's agenda. The facts of the time were that even the highest Maya ruler was himself OFTEN sacrificed, as well as the heads of royal families and other figureheads. If you think the suicide assassins of the Muslim world are brainwashed, they don't hold a candle to the Pre-Colombian civilizations.

I'm torn about the whole "I'm not going to a Mel/Polanski/Woody movie" though I can't bring myself to let any of my own money go to any of them.
Because, no one asks, or gives a shit if their plumber is an anti-semite, even if you would, you would NEVER ASK them or anyone else. No one wonders if they secretly married their wife's adopted daughter or had "consensual" sex with a thirteen year-old. We let them do their job and don't get personal with them.
Having been a professional actor with a bit of local fame for a short time it was very weird for me to have people get personal with me when they did NOT know me, just because I did a job for them for an hour or two.
That is what acting or directing is, a job, nothing more. It is no different than fixing your dry-wall, your shingles or changing your tire... so why do we care? Why no tabloids about railroad engeneers... I bet their wifes fuck around on them... makes no sense.

Accurate is better.

An anti-semitic plumber doesn't give you a historical narrative to apply to today. He just works on your pipes. Doesn't make millions doing it either. (Only hundreds of thousands.)

And, when you hire an anti-semitic plumber, it doesn't give him a continuing platform to be anti-semitic to the world.

There are too many good films for me to see in a year anyway.

See, I didn't get the feeling that the human sacrifices were the centerpiece. Even though there was a build-up to them and an escape from them, it really was only one small piece of the movie. The fact that they were quite explicit in the film, I think, is more because the movie is supposed to be an action adventure movie than because it is commentary.

It is so hard to know without hearing from the horse's mouth what is commentary and what is not. Like many of the rock and roll interviews I've heard where the songwriter's think it is funny that fans and critics come up with all these interpretations when the songwriter was just using a specific word because it rhymed.

Seems like there is a whole lot of extrapolation going on . . .

We got into talking about this the other day, about why stars become our example. Part of it is, I'm sure, because they make so much money their lives become fascinating. We want to know what it is like to be rich and famous.

I think part of it, too, is that the stars themselves are looking to be symbols. They are fame seekers, after all. There are many actors who are artists first and don't put themselves in the limelight, like Jody Foster, but if they are going to put themselves out there, they've gotta be able to take the hits.

It's a relationship.

Does that mean we should boycott certain directors/writers/actors? Sure, if we don't agree with their message or with what they do with their money. That's the beauty of free enterprise. We don't like it - we don't buy it.

I do it with stores, so I can see doing it with movies.

For me, though, in discussing this particular movie, I'd rather discuss the merits of the film itself and not the merits of Mel Gibson. By boycotting Gibson, I am inadvertently boycotting a whole lot of people I have nothing against. By the same token, there are times when I support one idea I like and inadvertently support a whole lot of ideas I don't like.

It's kind of like voting - you just decide where you feel the strongest and vote that way. It's never going to be perfect.

But it's inevitible that feelings or opinions about an artist influence your acceptance of his work. I know it affects me to the extent that I avoid the person's work if I have no respect for him or her, no matter how "good" it might be. But in the case of Mr. Gibson, I don't care one way or the other because I don't feel that he has either the credentials or the power to affect my life or anybody else's if they do not give him that permission.

It appears to me that the majority of consumers of ANY product make emotional decisions rather than intellectual ones. I even quit liking an actor whom I had a crush on for 20 years when I discovered that he smoked cigars and was a Virgo. That was a bit too much :greenface

Isn't that like an oxymoron or something? :lol:

First of all, plumbers in your area don't make a million dollars if they own their own company? Huh... they need to move.

I just don't get that their lives are "interesting", makes no sense to me. Having been a professional actor and working with some, they are like anyone else... each are different.
Do you also boycott the pedophiles, Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, what about anyone who had dealt drugs like Tim Allen or manslaughter like Charles S. Dutton, etc...?

I totally agree with that. During a certain stage of my life (and beauty) I spent a lot of time around actors and other Hollywood types. Whereas they often conform to the most garish of the stereotypes that we read about, many of them are just real people who happened to discover they were able to do this kind of work and make a good living. Some of the most famous of them were some of the kindest people I ever met, like Linda Evans who helped me with a scene. The director who created the Wonder Woman television show was the most generous and friendly person with the young people on the set, and I will never forget how he took me and a young actor named Robert Ginty (later to become very famous in his own right) to the race track and gave us a handful of money and told us to just have fun. Robert Forster was dignified and quiet while Mike Connors was a boorish lout who took a lighted cigarette onto the dance floor. I believe I also mentioned Phil Villapiano, who was with the Raiders when we made a TV commercial together. For every fathead and ego trip I met, there were 10 wonderful human beings, and it's really interesting that the jerks have completely slipped my mind.

Maybe it's all about entertainment - the excuse to get away from our own lives by looking at those of others.

It isn't just movie/tv stars that get tons of attention. Musicians, athletes and writers all get a lot of attention, too.

Or maybe it isn't just entertainment, but anyone that makes big bucks. Maybe we just want to microscope them in the chance that we might figure out how to get a copy of the rich gene, like all those people watching The Apprentice!

People are certainly not reading about Trump because he's cool and handsome, that's for sure, so it's gotta be the money thang, you know?

I guess... the thing is, based only on their lifestyle, they don't make that much.
Meaning, they live like they are rich, but it all goes into their lifestyle and their production... very few actually save any or invest any, most are one job away from broke.

... or one WIFE away :D

God, that just sickens me. I love how our kid's role models are possibly the stupidest people on the planet. I'm optimistic for the future.

It is a PARENT's role to guide a child to the more productive role models, and anybody who stands bye indifferently while the media does it for them is equally to blame. I have read numerous essays on how there are no real heroes in contemporary society, just people who are immitated because they are always visible. Wars used to be our hero mills, but with the rise of materialism and the media, Paris Hilton is what we get. The poor and stupid choose media figures who appear to have all the luxuries they do not while the ones admired by intellectuals and people who can make a positive difference in our world are never mentioned because they would be considered "boring" by the lowest common denominator.

Good rant Tonchi, you really hit the nail on the head.

One problem I see throughout kids today is that self-improvement is looked down upon. If you ask twenty teenagers if they read or not I guarantee that ten of them will remark how they "don't read" and seem proud of themselves for it. This type of attitude is horrible for America's future. I don't care if you don't like reading, but the people that look down upon reading because it "isn't cool" are complete idiots; these are also the kids that think they are rebellious for drinking (wake up call, 90%+ of teenagers drink). Throughout high school you still hear the grade school remark of "I didn't study" like they didn’t care what they got. Is it that hard to admit that you studied, or do you not want to look like a nerd? I mean, someone who will make tenfold of you in twenty years is not someone you should put down. I won't even get into how it is bad to improve yourself physically.

I like the statement which has been attributed to Bill Gates: "Don't be rough on the nerds; someday, if you are lucky enough to have a job, you will be working for one of them." ;)

I wish that were true, but from what I've seen, the media figures have an even larger following than that.:(

Ideally and historically, when heros are heros for their deeds and accomplishments, the hero worshipers aspire to improve their own deeds and accomplishments.

Currently, media figures are heros for the "bling" they accumulate and their "money for nothing" lifestyle. This inspires the hero worshipers to want accumulate "bling" as a measure of achievement. To do the same as their heros...riches without work.... usually leads to either crime or frustration driven antisocial behavior.

Role models and mentors have a huge impact....even, maybe especially, bad ones.

No saving for the future is shown, so people tend to spend all their money right away and have to live paycheck to paycheck instead of saving money and having a decent living in ten years. A change in role models could do wonders for America, a lot more than most would expect, including myself.

Parents choose.

Yes, parents are paramount.
But in the rebellious teenage years, when they look to their peers and the media for direction, it would be better if there were real heros to choose from.
Hopefully when they get older and stabilize, the parents example will surface.
Of course then we have the parents that are dazzled by the wrong things.:smack:

I hope to still be a role model for my children when they're teenagers.

Speaking for myself, when I was a teenager, there were a few years in there where I found my parents to be very uncool, but when I finally grew up, I went back to thinking they were great.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

I want my kids to be independent and able to make a decision without needing peer or authority approval.

I just had a wonderful conversation with my 16 yr old son about role models this afternoon while we were installing the base moulding in the dining room. He made some comments about how well we get along compared to some of his friends with their parents. I am so proud of him! What a great son I have - even after all he has been through with the divorce and all.

Some parents do a great job yesman. :)

Part of what can make the dynamic between kids and parents work is having multi-generational relationships. Robert Bly wrote a book called "Sibling Society" that talks about how each generation is starting to look more and more at their peers for advice on how to live life. Elders and youngers are becoming less significant in the greater life picture.

When we maintain relationships with elders and have multiple generations involved in our regular, everyday relationships, we develop "vertical" support rather than just "horizontal."

For instance, in our super-close circle of friends we have people who range from 90's to 20's and then teen cousins, so our kids are learning how to have relationships with people of all ages. I've seen this in my cousin's family as well. They still do things as a family unit even though the kids are all teens. They even come to my little kid's birthday parties.

The teens will have real-life conversations with grown-ups because to them grown-ups are real people to them. I'm seeing this with my own kids. They do not seem to be identifying solely because of their age. They'll interact with anyone who is interesting or who will give them the time of day (and not dismiss them because they are short).

There is much value in being able to say, Goodnight John-Boy. ;)