Jude Law is the John Edwards of Hollywood. Both are just too cute, and a bomb at the ballot/box office.
Posted on 12/11/2006 3:06:39 PM PST by SirLinksalot
If you want to hate something, hate when Hollyweird is successful at it with abominable crud.
Doesn't seem like Mel's finished no matter how the film ultimately does at the box office given just how violent it's claimed to be.
That the Catholic Spanish were right to crush the Aztec civilization like they did?
If anything, Mel toned down the violence. I remember reading that the Mayans liked to wear the bloody skins of their victims and as the National Geographic magazine put it some years ago, human flesh was a major protein source for the natives before the Spanish civilized South America. Mel alluded to the skinning and the cannibalism, but didn't show it in the movie. History isn't PC and the Noble Savage is a myth.
***He also gives alot of that money away and helped the poverty stricken people in the town where he filmed build homes for many families...***
He could not give any away till he madde it first. Good for him!
Jude Law is the John Edwards of Hollywood. Both are just too cute, and a bomb at the ballot/box office.
"If it had been directed by Quentin Tarantino, it would have been hailed as ultra-realistic portrayal of Mayan violence and if you didn't get that, then you were for censorship."
That's because Tarantino is one of the "cool kids" of Hollywood.
The PC types are very annoyed at this film. It shows what aimlessly bloody savages the Mayans were before the white man ever set foot in the New World. Not all, but many many Indian tribes loved war
And very often the wars were not over resources and hunting grounds. They were for male warrior honor, to enhance his tribal status. More wives and concubines for the valiant warrior. More booty and captive women sex slaves for him
I avoid his drek. He's an idiot
This film is about the Mayans but with the Aztec obsession for human sacrifice grafted onto it. Mayans didn't engage in even one 100th the amount of human sacrifice of the Azteca savages
That is one reason I like Independent Films because you can actually see a movie with some fresh plots. We are planning to see Gibson's latest.
You have some good points, everything you mention is present.
The story juxtaposes a moral culture of life against a moral culture of death. In Catholic theology, Mary is the mother of the body of Christ. In the story Jaguar Paw and his trib are the culture of life and would represent her children...before they were born. The Aztec/Mayans (IMO calling them Mayans is a brilliant move) would represent the other side, those who have given in to Satanic forces. Therefore this is a battle between the woman and her (preborn) offspring and the serpent and his (Gen 3:15- 1st reading on the feast day) .
Unlike others I think Gibson took ethnic culture off the table completely by making every character in the story "Mayan". I saw nothing taking a position about Western Civ.
The structure of the story seems chaiastic; revolving around a prayer from a desperate woman to a tender spirit mother for the sake of her children. This is a prayer that to any believing Catholic can only be answered by one woman.
“Holy Mother of God and of the Church, our Lady of Guadalupe, you were chosen by the Father for the Son through the Holy Spirit. You are the Woman clothed with the sun who labors to give birth to Christ while Satan, the Red Dragon, waits to voraciously devour your child.” http://www.sancta.org/patr-unb.html) Go to that website and look at the images and compare them to the images of Apocalypto and I think you'll start to see the worldview being expressed. .
(note - Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Marian apparition of Juan Diego, is Patroness of the America's and also of the unborn)
I should have mentioned that the Feast of the Immaculate Conception is a Marian feast day and in Catholic theology references to Eve also apply to Mary who is considered the "new Eve".
Gosh I don't know, that perhaps there is no amoral vacuum in the world. If there's not good present, evil fills in like a strong mastic. That after all the carnage and horror these people endured, they are met by men who had no idea what was happening in that forest before they stepped foot on the land. These men represented reason and a new beginning. It was a ruthless de-romanticizing of the pagan life. It was a strong unmistakeable message to me but maybe I was looking for it.
The Western civilization reference is only at the end, when the ships appear. There is sudden calm, as both pursuers and pursued stop in their tracks. The men on the ships are just sitting or standing there calmly. Gibson leaves it to us to breathe a sigh of relief.
Although I know the white man was not a total blessing to the natives, to say the least, Columbus's diaries reveal that he was on a mission from God, which is conveniently left out of all elementary school teaching on the subject. Europeans brought Christianity to the New World and that is a fact that eclipses their aberrant brutalities.
Yes, there are both strains: our mission as the bearers of the Christian message, which will eventually overcome the worst excesses, and the fact that all have fallen short of the ideal, so that we are indeed somewhat analogous.
Did you notice the woman who was being carried around on that portable throne? In one fleeting moment, she is seen to be wearing the stars and stripes. (Tell me I really saw that, and was not overdosing on popcorn.) Then as the violence accelerates, she appears doubtful about it all.
This movie does not contain anything of historical value for the audience. Gibson is a liberal capitalist who makes movies for the same reason as all the other liberal capitalists in Hollywood: TO MAKE MONEY!! ( He couldn't exist long without financial success.)
This movie tries to equate Mayan mistakes with the problems of the present world. It delivers an unrelenting barrage of violence in McLuhanesque style which no historian, Roman Catholic, or any other God-fearing individual will find entertaining or enlightening. Mel did some great work in the past, but this movie will endear him to the druggies from "Rolling Stoned" magazine much more than the inhabitants of main stream christianity. Simply pandering to Hollywood and Disney's needs here, he is. The film would be more aptly titled "Marshall McLuhan does East LA Gangs."
Sorry, he is not on a good track here in my opinion.
No, I didn't see it and I've seen the movie twice. The last time in a theater with DLP projectors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.