Mel Gibson's new movie: 'Apocalypto'

[Tonchi]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

Appocalypto is a heavy-handed, cultural critique of today's Western society, especially its pernicious cities.

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

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.

[Pangloss62]

[

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.

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 : )

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.

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.

[Griff]

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

[CaliforniaMama]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

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).

Defend away!

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.

[Tonchi]

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.

[Undertoad]

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.

[CaliforniaMama]

Originally Posted by Tonchi

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.

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 . . .

[CaliforniaMama]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

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.

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.

[Tonchi]

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

[CaliforniaMama]

Originally Posted by Tonchi

smoked cigars and was a Virgo.

Isn't that like an oxymoron or something?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

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

Originally Posted by CaliforniaMama

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.

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...?

[Tonchi]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

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.

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.

[CaliforniaMama]

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.