Apocalypto (Mel Gibson, 2006)

[Jeff]

So this is Mel Gibson's new picture about a guy trying to save his culture from being destroyed or something. The whole thing is in Mayan. The trailer is here, and it looks moderately interesting. The best part though, is that if you step through the trailer a frame at a time, you find this image:

.

More details on that here.

[Gregory]

Their preview page says:

Mel makes another movie with actors speaking in dead languages. This time they're speaking Maya and the film is about the fall of the Mayan Empire.

I've never been to that site before that seems a bit ignorant. "Maya" isn't a language, but more importantly the Mayan language family includes around 30 languages currently spoken by 3 million or so people -- hardly a "dead language."
The most significant reason to point this out is that it serves as an example of how most people in industrial societies overwhelmingly think of American indigenous cultures as something that ceased to exist long ago; their current state of existence is invisible. This has been conditioned by the U.S film industry with literally thousands of cinematic representations of indigenous people in the mythic past and only a handful about indigenous people in contemporary times.
So this new Mel Gibson project doesn't surprise me in the least. I believe most moviegoers would tend to look at it this way: "A movie about the fall of the Mayan Empire? How romantic, how exciting!" What about an ambitious film that captures aspects of what life is like for Mayan people today? "Nah, that would be boring. Do they even exist anymore?"

[Gordon]

This would be an interesting movie... if not for Mel Gibson. I looked it up on the IMDb, hoping to see the credit, "Erich von Däniken .... special consultant", but, alas, no. The Maya culture of that period was incredibly complex and I wonder how much research Gibson and Farhad Safinia conducted. This is Safinia's first screenplay. I can't seem to find out much about, although he must surely be some kind of scholar on mesoamerican cultures.

BTW: That picture of Gibson above is great - what an arse! Didn't he ban smoking on Passion? Watching Gallipoli recently, it was hard to reconcile that actor with this latter day blow-hard faux auteur. I'll be amazed if this isn't a huge flop, just like Kevin Reynolds' 1994 Easter Island epic, Rapa Nui, which most movie fans don't seem to know even exists! Still, this should be a must-see; it is bound to be the most bizarre movie experiences of 2006, at the least.

[exte]

Watching Gallipoli recently, it was hard to reconcile that actor with this latter day blow-hard faux auteur.

Wait a minute. Gallipoli was his fifth starring picture, and 25 years later, the bastard can't make a picture with his own money without being called a faux auteur? It will be his fourth directorial effort. I'll never understand people like you, but maybe I already do. It sounds like sour grapes to me... Even if this completely flops, it's on his hands. And I think he's fully prepared for that. What would you rather have him do with his time, make Lethal Weapon 7? More honest films like Gallipoli, with him strictly in front of the camera? I wonder what you think of Eastwood, another actor turned director... I know, a can of worms, but lines like 'latter day blow-hard faux auter' piss me off... Wtf?

[godardslave]

"apocalypto"

what a ghastly made-up bastardization of a previously honest word.

just that one fucking word makes me feel sick.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

It's an actual word -- ancient Greek for "to reveal" or "to uncover" (although Gibson seems to think it means "new beginning"). It's the root of "apocalypse." Why he gave a Yucatec-language movie an ancient Greek title is a little unclear to me.

[ben d banana]

I know, a can of worms, but lines like 'latter day blow-hard faux auter' piss me off... Wtf?

Okay, but even I have to admit Gordon's on target with "blow-hard."

[cdnchris]

I don't know. I think I like Gibson more since he's gone crazy. That picture is one of the reasons why.

[Gordon]

Maybe I am being a bit hard on Gibson. I love the first two Mad Max films in addition to Gallipoli, but he has had a pretty odd career. The Passion (I didn't know he was a staunch, traditionalist Catholic; I don't care about such things) came out of nowhere to me, but I think it's a noble achievement in modern Cinema, and although I am fascinated with the Christ enigma, it isn't a film that I find particularly interesting and I wasn't that shocked at the violence, as I had read about how Jesus was tortured prior to being crucified. My interest is in the Gnostic/alchemical interpretation of Christ, than the literal interpretation of his physical testament. Similarly, I have an ongoing interest in mesoamerican cultures, modern and ancient and films that deal with those cultures and I hope that Apocalypto is as powerful as The Passion, but with a more involving and, uh... unpredictable story!

Mel Gibson is a hard man to like, though. He is perhaps the epitome of Hollywood Ego, but he has the talent - and clout - to make intersting films and I hope that Apocalypto is one of the best films of 2006.

[Mr Sausage]

It's an actual word -- ancient Greek for "to reveal" or "to uncover" (although Gibson seems to think it means "new beginning"). It's the root of "apocalypse." Why he gave a Yucatec-language movie an ancient Greek title is a little unclear to me.

Bit of useless Saturday pendantry:

It should actually be spelled Apokalupto, from Apokalupsis--although I am aware of the imprecise nature of transliteration. I suppose he's using the spelling Apocalypto to reference the Greek while still making the meaning available to common theater goers. I'm still not sure why he's using the Greek, tho'.

That picture is a real howl. And I seem to be one of the few on here who isn't in some way irritated or fed-up with Mel Gibson. I still probably won't see the movie, however. I'm lazy. I still haven't seen Passion of the Christ.

[che-etienne]

I wonder what you think of Eastwood, another actor turned director... I know, a can of worms, but lines like 'latter day blow-hard faux auter' piss me off... Wtf?

Eastwood = pretty good and sometimes great.

Gibson = no talent hack.

There's kind of a difference. Sure, there are many actors turned directors, especially these days. Going down the list to name a few: Andy Garcia, Tommy Lee Jones, George Clooney, even Gwyneth Paltrow so I hear. Gibson, however, is not imho a good one. His films have been melodramatic, overly romanticized, brazenly inaccurate, horribly written, and badly edited pieces of s--t.

[Antoine Doinel]

'Apocalypto' now for Mel, Maya and historians

Posted 6/28/2006 11:13 PM ET

By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY

Call it The Passion of the Maya: Mel Gibson is quietly filming a movie in a Mexican jungle about the collapsed civilization.

Given Gibson's cinematic history, experts on the ancient Maya are looking forward to his upcoming epic, Apocalypto, with a mixture of curiosity and dread. They're pleased that Hollywood will feature a period of world history still little understood but worry that once again a movie may sacrifice historical accuracy for the sake of a good story.

"A lot depends on how well they depict the Maya. It may serve as a really good springboard into a lecture," says archaeologist Lisa Lucero of New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. "Or it may be something we have to nip in the bud in that first lecture."

Gibson wasn't available for comment, and the public relations firm for his Icon Productions declined to offer any details on the film's plot.

But according to the film's website, Apocalypto promises "a heart-stopping mythic action-adventure set against the turbulent end-times of the once-great Mayan civilization." The story centers on a kidnapped hero's bid to escape a mass sacrifice at one Maya center. According to another description of the plot in Time magazine's March preview, a ruler orders the mass sacrifice of hapless captives to appease the gods and avert a drought.

The only problem, and big cause for worry among archaeologists, is "the classic Maya really didn't go in for mass sacrifice," Lucero says. "That was the Aztecs." Other concerns: the modern-day Mayan Yucatec language spoken in the film is not the language of the ancient Maya, and the film's Mexican shooting locale is not the classic Maya homeland, says Penn State archaeologist David Webster.

Gibson's last production, The Passion of the Christ, collected complaints, and compliments, from religious scholars, even as it made $370 million in North America. Most of the controversy centered on charges of anti-Semitism, but some, such as DePaul University's John Dominic Crossan, also complained about Jesus speaking Latin and details of the Crucifixion, among other questions.

Gibson's Icon Productions declined to comment on archaeologists' concerns through its Los Angeles public relations firm, Rogers & Cowan. In an interview in March with Time, Gibson said, "After what I experienced with The Passion, I frankly don't give a flying (expletive) about much of what those critics think." He told Time he partly views the movie as a political allegory for leadership in our own era.

Gibson has consulted on the film with archaeologist Richard Hansen, head of the Mirador Basin Project in northern Guatemala, a forest reserve home to a number of Maya archaeological sites. Hansen also declined to comment, other than to say that project findings played a role in the film.

The classic Maya were one of the most developed cultures of Central America before the arrival of Columbus. The Maya practiced slash-and-burn and terrace farming, relying on corn as a staple, and repairing in the dry season to ceremonial centers holding monumental pyramids, plazas and temples.

In 1989, discoveries by Hansen and colleagues established that Maya rulers had centralized their roles far earlier than once supposed, building several massive centers with the help of commoners as early as 600 B.C. The classic Maya culture's history lasted for more than 1,000 years, ending around A.D. 850 with the collapse of the use of ceremonial centers in what are now parts of Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico.

Scholars still disagree over the extent to which war, drought or general political failure led to the collapse.

By focusing on the role of mass sacrifice, Apocalypto seems poised to insert its own vision into this area of scholarly disagreement, says Lucero, who this year published Water and Ritual: The Rise and Fall of Classic Maya Rulers. The lack of signs of warfare at the sites she has studied, and many others, points more toward a political collapse of the classic Maya, she concludes. "People voted with their feet," she says, moving back into the jungle or northward in a time of drought and political upheaval, when rulers lacking water couldn't compel farmers to visit their centers.

Focusing only on certain aspects of the Maya collapse such as violence or ecological disasters may create the incorrect impression that it was a simple process or that it was caused by a single factor, says archaeologist Tomas Barrientos of Guatemala's Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, by e-mail. Other scholars are just looking forward to seeing how the movie turns out. The film is scheduled for release on Dec. 8. Heavy rains in Mexico had delayed filming this year.

"Actually I'm quite looking forward to seeing it. I think films like this are really funny, and they vastly help me with my teaching, " Webster says. For example, he says, using locations and temples in non-Maya areas of Mexico is "a little like filming the siege of Troy using Roman backdrops."

But after all, Apocalypto is just a movie. And students like hearing how movies get it wrong, Webster says, and enjoy learning the real story. So, "cheers to Mel for being such a juicy target."

TIMELINE OF A CIVILIZATION

The ancient Maya flourished in Central America for centuries, culminating in a mass abandonment of ceremonial centers around A.D. 900. Despite the attention given to the collapse of the classic Maya, perhaps 6 million Maya live today in parts of Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala. A Maya timeline:

600 B.C. - During the "pre-classic period, large-scale Maya ceremonial centers are built at centers such as
Nak'be, Mirador and Tikal.
200 B.C. - Work begins on the massive "North Acropolis" of Tikal, today a Guatemalan tourist site.
A.D. 100 - High-quality "classic" murals are painted at San Bartolo, El Petén, in Guatemala depicting the Maya Corn God, a sign that classic Maya culture has an earlier origin than once supposed.
A.D. 250 - The Maya "Long Count" calendar and hieroglyphic writing are in use in the lowlands of Guatemala.
The deeds of rulers begin to be recorded on stone.
A.D. 350 - Maya first build plastered buildings in the Copan region, today Honduras.
A.D. 475 - Powerful cities such as Tikal, Caracol and Calakmul dominate much of the lowlands.
A.D. 562 - Tikal ruler Wak Chan K'awiil (Double Bird, 537–62) is taken captive, apparently by the ruler of Calakmul. Calakmul is the most powerful kingdom in the central Maya area.
A.D. 738 - Copán's ruler, (18 Rabbit r. 695–738), is taken captive on May 3, 738, and decapitated by ruler K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yoaat (Fire-burning Sky Lightning God, r. 724–85) of Quiriguá.
A.D. 800 - Conflict increases, trade declines, and alliances break, leading to the loss of many cities. Drought afflicts the lowland Maya.
A.D. 869 - The last standing stone is erected in Tikal. Later the city is deserted and taken over by squatters.

[kinjitsu]

APOCALYPTO: The Official Movie Website

APOCALYPTO: Gibson's next film and the Mayan year 2012

[kinjitsu]

Caryn James in the NYTimes: How Mad Is Mad Mel? Waiting for 'Apocalypto'

[David Ehrenstein]

She's full of shit about Braveheart's obvious homophobia and she's full of shit about the obvious antisemitism of NASCAR Jesus.

His career is over.

[Antoine Doinel]

New trailer!

Great trailer, I think - even better than the first with some pretty astonishing images. Pretty gutsy for the studio to stick it right in the middle of awards season with Mel Gibson's name still all over it. Either (a) Mel/Touchstone is planning a huge media comeback and Oscar baiting campaign or (b) they are just going to ride the Gibson controversy to the bank.

[Via_Chicago]

I don't know, but that is some seriously trippy shit.

[Macintosh]

There's a good chance this film could win the Academy Award for best cinematography. It looks beautiful. Does this film really need to be historically accurate for it to be good though? When i think of all the idiotic complaints i heard philistines make about The New World not being historically accurate, it drives me mad.

[jorencain]

I already have such a strong bias against Mel Gibson that I don't want to like the movie, even if I see it. I just think he's a shithead, and my own personal hang-ups about that will, most likely, keep me from enjoying this. Unless there is unversal praise, I probably won't even be seeing it.

Anyway....yes, they're pretty pictures in the trailer, but that could be about all it is. I have to echo davidhare on this one.

[Antoine Doinel]

I'm sure the film industry is filled with hateful, egotistical, mysognistic, sexist assholes -- it's just that Mel Gibson's views came public in a most unfortunate way.

If I didn't watch movies because the people making them were assholes, well, I probably wouldn't watch many movies at all.

[exte]

If I didn't watch movies because the people making them were assholes, well, I probably wouldn't watch many movies at all.

Thank you Antoine Doinel. This trailer was just awesome. If he can match the battle scenes in Braveheart, then I'm sold. And we'll see how long "his career is over" if this makes over a hundred million (and how fast)...

[Ives]

I'm likin' the grammar in the tag line: "No ONE can outrun THEIR destiny." But then, I guess since the film's not in English, it doesn't matter....

[montgomery]

I'm surprised that anyone thinks Mel's outburst is going to ruin his career. I'm positive it will sell more tickets. Since this film looks very Malick-like, but with even fewer commercial concessions (not in english, no famous names, no white people, esoteric story, not about Jesus), it seems an outburst about jews is just what this film needed to rake in the money. If this movie does well financially, the bulk of the credit should go to Mel's wacky anti-semitic PR stunt.

(Judging by the reactions on this board, where, in the contrarian spirit of a Slate article, people are already over-eager to embrace this film, his stunt seems to be working.)

[David Ehrenstein]

I'm surprised that anyone thinks Mel's outburst is going to ruin his career. I'm positive it will sell more tickets. Since this film looks very Malick-like

It will no doubt rake in the Big Bucks that Malick's last two films produced.

[Antoine Doinel]

It may look like a Malick movie, but I'm sure the pacing is going fairly standard/Hollywood.