"Within decades of the first contact with the Spaniards, the Maya would die in the hundreds of thousands as European diseases, colonial exploitation, and cruelty took root."

I think it's hardly likely that cruelty first appeared to the Maya civilization only after Europeans arrived. The Mayans were only human, and therefore had an equal capacity for cruelty as the Spaniards. Why is it so terrible to think that the Maya might have been merely savage, and not also noble?

While I cannot argue the fact that this movie is filled with historical inaccuracies and fantasies, one fantasy that is *not* included in the film is this bit about the Spaniards arriving as saviors.

I have heard the argument more than once that the Spanish arrival in this movie is depicted as being the saviors showing up just in time to show the primitives how to run a society. But this interpretation of the movie is fueled by the authors’ view of Mel Gibson. If you watch the movie itself, and separate the movie from the man who made it, this last scene is clearly depicting something far different. The approaching Spaniards are correctly identified by the protagonist as being a threat, and the "new beginning" referred to in the film is explicitly stated in the dialogue as being in the forest *away* from the Spaniards. When asked by his wife if they should approach these new strange men, Panther Paw replies that no- they should return to the forest to seek a new beginning.

You want history go to college - you want drama, go to the movies!

"There is no mention of recorded total solar eclipses, or discussions in the Codex for how to predict these events."

The intelligentsia have decided that deriding Gibson and his works is "right think". Here is another bit of the dog pile. Get over your priggish selves. Better yet, quit treating Salon as part of your echo chamber.

It is a bit hard to respect scholars who ignore the level of violence of earlier cultures. Directors have artistic license to interpret, scholars do not. I guess it is too easy to project your own values when the people are spatially or temporally distant.

The relative peacefulness of our lives today is new. Most Americans have never even seen an animal butchered. Under the rule of law, we've replaced street fighting with courtrooms. Clean hands, however, are not the historical norm.

Abu Ghraib shocks us today (pun intended), but is rather tame by even medieval standards. Yes, there were medieval standards - the term "third degree" refers to a somewhat standardized third level of torment. Things were nastier before standardization.

Truth is, the movie is rather fine. Even odder, I saw it on a first date and she liked it. It gave a nice center to out later wine soaked meandering conversation.

tyler wrote:

The intelligentsia have decided that deriding Gibson and his works is "right think". Here is another bit of the dog pile. Get over your priggish selves. Better yet, quit treating Salon as part of your echo chamber.

********

did you read this piece with any care at all? The writer is not "intelligensia." He's a Yale scholar, specializing in pre-columbian societies. You're going to argue history with HIM? That I want to see.

He's not in an echo chamber, he's telling us what really went on, and when, to the best of our current knowledge. I find that a hell of a lot more interesting than Mel Gibson's fantasies.

Mel could have taken the trouble to do a little elementary research, and probably he could have come up with a much better story. But Mel's fantasies are far superior to fact, yes?

As for your wine-soaked conversation after, all you were discussing was Mel Gibson's various neuroses...not history.

Get over your own priggish, immature self, dude. Your know-nothing bullshit dumbs down Salon.

This is one of those times. This review is internally inconsistent.

"...presumably human, though the Spanish never witnessed any of the sacrifices themselves. It is also true that "skull-racks," as seen in the movie, were found at some sites in the Yucatan. However, these were practices adopted by Maya groups very late in their history."

The movie depicts the very late Mayan, hence, the Spanish appearing on the coast. The fact that the custom and dress doesn't matter, it's called dramatic license.

The sad truth is that Gibson didn't even get the details close to correct for Passion of the Christ, so to expect him to get the details for Apocalypto correct is asking a bit too much.

Apocalypto is a story about a person and his family, the setting is the background, it's meant to be beautiful and exotic, but not a historical representation.

"Although the main actors are native North Americans, I applaud Gibson's use of some Maya actors..."

Isn't Mexico in North America? Well, there goes this guy's credibility...

What's the matter, no atlases at Yale?

Nice to see the viagra kicking in. Sadly, you choose to waste it by waving your junk at me. Why me? I'm sorry you confuse my disdain for interest. Regardless, the letters to this point are over 70% against the article. Some are as funny as yours.

"The writer is not "intelligensia." He's a Yale scholar"

I'm going to use that one.

Professor Canuto's article is exactly what I needed after seeing Apocalypto yesterday on the big screen--someone to answer many of the nagging questions I had regarding Mayan culture after leaving Gibson's latest torture fest (as an aside, I bought a ticket to Borat and snuck into Apocalypto--sorry Mel, while I like you as a filmmaker, I found your apology less than sincere and I'm not going to add to your fortunes). Many of Professor Canuto's observations were spot on--such as the complexity of the Mayan's intellectual achievements and the diversity of their culture. Instead, Mel treated us to a feverish nightmare of a brutal pagan civilization in decline. His message wasn't all that clear either--was he attempting to draw parallels to today's Western society warning us about the depletion of our natural resources? Or was Apocalypto about the dangers of intenecine warfare among our polarized political factions? Who knows.

In any case, Gibson was apparently more interested in satisfying what appears to be his obsession with cinematic sadism given the horrifyingly graphic images he deploys (a severed head's POV, a Jaguar ripping a man's face to shreds, etc...). If his goal is offering us an exhilarating, intense action-adventure in an unfamaliar world, then I dare say he succeeded (think of it as Mel's Mayan "Predator"--hero is stalked by bad guy/guys and must use his jungle expertise to face his fears and prevail). But if Mel's intent was to open a door to what life was like for the Maya on the eve of the Spanish conquest, Canuto's analysis is ample evidence not to take Gibson's portrayal seriously. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Apocalpto as much as one enjoys watching Faces of death. But I take the cultural depiction with a grain of salt as should anyone who sees this movie. It's a shame Gibson didn't attempt to acheive a more complicated portrayal of Moyan history, but then again, that wouldn't fit with his latest embrace of martyrdom.

One other thing: I disagree with the point Professor Canuto raises about the ending. When Jaguar Paw, our hunter-gatherer hero, along with his wife and children, gazes at the Spanish armada anchored offshore from atop a ridge and says "it's a new beginning," I think it's obvious Gibson's being ironic here. There's no indication at all that Jaguar Paw accepts these strange humans paternalistically as if the adults have finally arrivved. On the contrary, it's clear he views them as a threat as he tells his family they must take shelter in the forest. His world is collapsing, yes, but that doesn't mean he's not going to fight to preserve what's left of it.