Seeing is believing in movies

Someone asked me the following via e-mail:Q--Do you think people believe more what they see in the movies than actual history? Braveheart is a great example of something that played with history, yet is taken as largely factual by people. What are the negatives and positives to this? You wrote a bit about it happening with Apocalypto. Do you know of other examples?My response:

I think people believe what they absorb from all sources--from movies to TV shows to history books. The problem is that most people have seen 10 or 100 movies and TV shows featuring stereotypical Indians for every book they've read. If the ratio were reversed--10 or 100 history books for every movie or TV show--I think their beliefs would be reversed too. But that isn't the case.

I'd say this applies to every work of fiction featuring Indians, not just Apocalypto. I've written about it often--in general and in specific cases such as Apocalypto. For example:

Why people believe movies
The influence of movies
Verisimilitude in movies
Audiences don't want dry facts

Others have written about this too because it's patently obvious. Movies try to recreate reality with locations, sets, costumes, and so forth. Lincoln was a tall guy with a beard and a hat, not a short bald woman. If everything else in a movie strives to seem real, why would someone assume the Indians are false and unrepresentative?

Answer: No one would assume that. The fact that is that few if any people think critically about the elements of moviemaking. They assume a Native-themed movie is based on reality because the vast majority of historical dramas are based on reality.

I hope that answers your question. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Rob

P.S. For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.

Latin American Native films

The same site that lists Latin American Native children's films also lists films about Central and South American Indians.

Movies Featuring the Native Peoples of Central & South America

As before, it looks like a great resource on the subject.

The site has a list of Top 10 films that includes Apocalypto, The Mission, and The Emerald Forest. In a poll on Facebook, fans overwhelming said they liked Apocalypto the best of these three movies. Probably because it's about 20 years newer than the others.

Long-time readers know what I think of the racist and stereotypical Apocalypto. I still have no plans to see it. I voted for Emerald Forest as the best.

For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.

Below:  The super-scary, phony-baloney Maya culture in Apocalypto.

Apocalypto in It's Always Sunny

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia continues its streak of Native references with the 12th episode of its fourth season. Titled The Gang Gets Extreme: Home Makeover Edition (airdate: 11/13/08), the episode has "the gang" remaking a Latino family and its home.

Mac and Sweet Dee dress up the Juarez family in wigs and leisure wear to make them look "American." Then Mac says:Now, while we wait, I was thinking: We expose them to some good old-fashioned American cinema. Apocalypto. They can learn about how their ancestors used to be savages, until Mel Gibson and the Catholics came in and saved everybody.Comment:  If a serious pundit had said this, I'd say it was stereotypical and insulting. But since Mac and his friends are idiots, his comments reflect badly on them, not the Juarezes.

This shows the importance of context in determining the meaning of words. Depending on who's saying it and why, almost anything can become an attack.

For more on the subject, see Colonial Indians in It's Always Sunny and Tim Sampson in It's Always Sunny.

Native truth vs. Christian lies

It Ain't Easy Being IndianI got no problem with those who embrace a different religion than I choose to practice, let me say that right away. I do have a big issue with those who try to convert by coercion, force, trickery or downright lies. Look in your history books, the front line to the occupation of our Turtle Island were missionaries. In Rezberry’s case, they were Jesuits who preached fire and brimstone(?), and a miserable life in white man’s hell where no Indian had yet trod.

The Christians then gleefully reported back to their respective tiny kingdoms that the New World was peopled by red-demon worshipers, but they could be saved for X amount of money, and could you send it in care of the Pope (or whatever head of state)? Of course, the countries of the invaders had their own problems at home, they were running out of dry wood with which to burn witches, warlocks and the like.

When the invaders encountered our Native Nations and the Aztec and Mayan peoples they saw nothing of the ancient, amazing, sophisticated civilizations we had created. No, they chose to see and report the occasional human sacrifice to the Gods. And this is different from burning people alive and a weekly ‘drinking the blood and eating the body of Christ’? How? Yeah, some of you may be mad right now but if you read this column and know where I’m coming from, you will at least give it some thought and consideration. Please.

Because I am still really angry about Mel Gibson’s movie, “Apocalypto.”

The other day I was in Blockbuster and I asked my son Steve if he had ever seen that movie. “No,” he sez, “but I heard it was really good!” Action, adventure, gore and blood yes, any American male would find it entertaining. The truth of it is that the story and so-called facts are wholly and entirely inaccurate, to put it very nicely. As a matter of fact it is so full of #*^%&(*&*(& and *^%@%4r%% that I got in a major fight with a friend who also thought it was a good movie. And he’s Mexican.

There just ain’t nothing funny about being Indian and allowing the invader’s descendants to lie about our Native origins! The collective world population accepts them as fact, not the fiction it is. We have to step up, put a stop to the horrifyingly grisly stories like Mel Gibson’s sanctimonious ‘Apocalypto’ and tell them ourselves.Comment:  Thanks for reiterating what I've said before, Ricey. It's pretty obvious if you think about it.

Mel Gibson, Steven Spielberg, and other filmmakers are part of America's media-industrial complex. Part of their mission is to promote that the idea that Judeo-Christian beliefs are true and Native beliefs aren't. Hence we get movies such as The Passion of the Christ, Apocalypto, and the Indiana Jones flicks.

Below:  He died in The Passion of the Christ so that Natives could repent their heathen ways. Since they didn't do as he wished, his followers came to America in Apocalypto to enforce God's will. His followers are still sending emissaries into the wilderness to convert pagans such as those in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Mexico says no to exploitation

Why didn't Mel Gibson's Apocalypto have the cooperation of the Mexican government? Because Mexico protects its cultural heritage from commercial exploitation. Here's the story:

Treasures of a Nation, Not Fodder for an AdEager to bolster tourism, Hidalgo State came up with a novel idea: an advertising campaign featuring a well-known actress wearing Hidalgo’s most eye-popping sites on her flesh.

“Hidalgo, under my skin” was the catch phrase for the ads, which featured the soap opera actress Irán Castillo covered with computer-generated images of mountains, waterfalls and monuments.

But federal officials were unimpressed. They did not object to Ms. Castillo’s lying seminude on the grass with hot-air balloons displayed on her body or lounging in a forest with images of rock faces on her flank or even sprawled on a beautiful mosaic wearing nothing but a beautiful mosaic. “We’re not moralistic,” insisted Benito Taibo, an executive with Mexico’s National Institute for Anthropology and History. “We don’t have an issue with her. She’s a pretty girl.”

But the institute did have an issue with Ms. Castillo’s wearing Mexico’s patrimony on her curvaceous form. Whether it was the stone Atlantes in Tula de Allende or the old aqueduct in Padre Tembleque or the former convent in San Nicolás Tolentino, imprinting one of Mexico’s treasures on a soap opera star was deemed a violation of the law.The institute's other decisions:The country’s anthropology institute, based in Mexico City, does more than just serve as Mexico’s monument police. It oversees a vast collection of pyramids, shrines and other attractions, all more than a century old. With 800 researchers, the institute churns out academic treatises that seek to make sense of the country’s past. It also rejects anything seen as exploiting a historical artifact’s dignity.

That means that when a paint company recently asked if it could feature artifacts in a commercial, the institute said no.

The current crop of requests in a thick binder in Mr. Taibo’s office also includes one from the BBC seeking to film a documentary at a pyramid (Sí), another from a university professor seeking to do research at a site (Sí) and a third from a real estate developer who wanted to publish photographs of pyramids in his ads (No).

The institute’s staff pores over a movie script when a production company asks permission to film at a historical site to determine whether the story line is objectionable. “Apocalypto,” Mel Gibson’s 2006 film on the decline of Mayan civilization, received a no.

“We said, ‘You can film anywhere except in our historical zones,’ ” said Mr. Taibo, who is also a published poet. “It was a film loosely based on history, but it was a particularly bloody interpretation of our past.”Comment:  I'm glad to see the institute rejected Apocalypto for its falsification of Maya history. It didn't stop Gibson from filming, but it may have slowed him down. More to the point, it prevented him from claiming the Maya and their descendants supported his apocalyptic vision.

Unlike Apocalypto, though, it's hard to see how the Hidalgo ad would hurt anything. It's promoting an interest in Mexico's history--literally trying to make it sexy. That seems like a decent idea to me. (It would be even better if they also used a male model to avoid the appearance of sexism.)

Another expert criticizes Apocalypto

"Apocalypto" Tortures the Facts, Expert SaysMel Gibson says Apocalypto, his new movie set during the collapse of the Maya Empire, should not be seen as a historical document.

At least one expert couldn't agree more.

To find out what the Maya Empire was really like, Stefan Lovgren checked in with Zachary Hruby, a Maya expert at the University of California, Riverside.Apocalypto:  A New Beginning or a Step Backward?Mel Gibson's new thriller about the ancient Maya civilization is exactly that, thrilling. However, this entertainment comes at a dear price. The Maya at the time of Spanish Contact are depicted as idyllic hunters and gatherers, or as genocidal murderers, and neither of these scenarios is accurate. The film represents a step backward in our understanding of the complex cultures that existed in the New World before the Spanish invasion, and is part of a disturbing trend reemerging in the film industry, which portrays nonwestern natives as evil savages. "King Kong" and "Pirates of the Caribbean II" show these natives as uncaring, beastlike, and virtually inhuman. Apocalypto achieves similar goals, but in a much subtler fashion.

Although this film will undoubtedly create interest in the field of Maya archaeology by way of its spectacular reconstructions and beautiful jungle scenes, the lasting impression of Maya and other Pre-Columbian civilizations is this: The Maya were simple jungle bands or bloodthirsty masses duped by false religions, that their mighty but misguided civilization fell into ruin as a result, and their salvation arrived with the coming of Christian beliefs saddled on the backs of Spanish conquistadors. As we archaeologists struggle to accurately reconstruct ancient Maya society, obstructed by their decimation via Western diseases, destruction of their books, art, and history by Spanish friars, not to mention their subjugation and exploitation by the conquistadors, films such as Apocalypto represent a significant disparagement of that process. Further, inaccurate, irresponsible representations by Hollywood of indigenous peoples as amoral, inhuman, or uncivilized can only lead to greater misunderstanding and strife in contemporary society. This may be particularly important in a modern world where common ground is increasingly difficult to come by.

Pathfinder = poor man's Apocalypto

‘PATHFINDER’ is a poor man’s APOCALYPTO that is dark, dreary, and lacking in thrills.Very rarely has an action/adventure film bored me as senselessly as PATHFINDER did. I am not sure what is the film’s most negligible flaw: The fact that it has monotonous and ridiculously repetitive action sequences that would not be held captive by most mindless 1980’s action films or that it has absolutely nothing interesting or remarkable to say about the first visitors to the Native tribes of America, predating Columbus by 600 years. Let’s just say that the film is very appropriately titled; it inspired in me a yearning to search for the closest route to ensure my exit from the theatre in the most expeditious manner possible.

This film’s sensibilities (and aesthetic choices, for that matter) are all over the map. PATHFINDER is a mess. I am not sure what it really wants to be. At certain face value, its appears that it wants to appropriate some of the elements of such historically realistic films like--for example--Mel Gibson’s APOCALYPTO crossed with the adrenaline-charged, sword-swinging, teeth-grinding bloodbaths of CONAN THE BARBARIAN. Then there are elements of more generic and contemporary action films thrown in for good measure, and by those I mean ham-infested and groan inducing dialogue (like, “I’m not gonna leave you” and “Go on without me”), silly and annoying clichés, and chaotic and convoluted action set pieces.

Pathfinder resembles 300, Apocalypto

Some quotes from the movie's reviews:This could be seen as a movie trend toward bloody historical fiction in the wake of "300," except for the slight difference that none of this ever happened. Then again, it's doubtful real Spartans had abs like the guys in "300," so who cares about history anyway? (Detroit News)

Since "300" set the gold standard for slow-motion, sword-wielding violence last month, "Pathfinder" must be shooting for silver or bronze or, well, you get the idea.

Although the picture looks great--in the same way that films like "300" look great--nicely framed shots of arrows piercing eyeballs and blood splattering the ground--it's difficult to get past the fact that not much happens during the 100-minute run. (Zanesville Times Recorder)

The oft-delayed actioner "Pathfinder" is like the dumbed down offspring of "300" and "Apocalypto."

And neither of those films fell anywhere near the genius category. (Washington Times)

Torture scenes (spears plunged into eyes and other organs, people whipped ferociously and hanged from trees) are reminiscent of Mel Gibson's Mayan epic, Apocalypto. (USA Today)

IT would be too easy to describe PATHFINDER (15) as simply a Viking version of Apocalypto. It would also be hugely unfair...to Apocalypto.

Whether the over-the-top blood-letting of Mel Gibson's Mayan adventure was to your taste or not, it is unquestionably a better movie.

Where Apocalypto felt vital and fresh, Pathfinder seems sluggish and obvious and unoriginal. (Muswell Hill Journal)

Think of it as "Apocalypto" with a northern twist.

As to whether the Vikings could beat the Persians from "300," well, you'll have to wait for the video game. (Daily Herald)

Like Apocalypto, Pathfinder is another pseudo-historical walk on the wild side, this time featuring a vaguely plausible (but completely unsubstantiated) encounter between ninth-century Vikings and Native Americans.

It’s very much like Apocalypto in that it boils down to one character playing cat-and-mouse through the forest with a band of barbarians, although eventually the nasty Norsemen take hostage Starfire (Moon Bloodgood, Eight Below), Ghost’s girlfriend, but at least she’s not useless shrieking baggage.

What I don’t like is that director Marcus Nispel (crafter of music videos for Janet Jackson, Amy Grant and others) has chosen a murky, grey-toned palette for his cinematography, as pervasive as the bronze-hued scheme for 300 and which, most of the time, just makes it hard to identify characters (although it helps obscure some pretty bad digital effects). (Columbia Free Times)Comment:  I'm glad several reviewers noticed the resemblance between Pathfinder and 300 or Apocalypto. This resemblance was obvious from the Pathfinder trailer. Anyone who can "read" trailers would've noticed it.

In fact, the Columbia Free Times nailed it: Pathfinder has the plot of Apocalypto and the style of 300. So did the Washington Times, describing it as a cross between 300 and Apocalypto. Which is just what I said.

Youngblood ignores Yeagley

Mel Gibson Denounces Yeagley

Youngblood answers his critics:Youngblood says he is unequivocally Comanche by blood and is baffled by Yeagley's claims. "I don't know him. I've never seen him. I've never talked to him. I've never crossed paths with him," said Youngblood. The accusations of fraud first appeared on Yeagley's website, BadEagle.com, and subsequently in articles in the Los Angeles Times and Back Stage.

The actor and former dancer with the Native American Dance Theatre said he will officially enroll in the Comanche Nation, which requires federal documents proving an individual is at least one-eighth Comanche Indian. "It's just taking the time. It's a long process. It's very drawn out. [But] it's not like I can't," he said.And ignores Yeagley:As advised by Gibson, his mentor, Youngblood said he will continue to ignore Yeagley and his supporters. "[Gibson] said, 'People like that will never be happy. Jealousy eats at you, and all they have is driven by hate.' "

"I'm not going to say anything to [Yeagley]. I'm going to let him talk," Youngblood added. "Instead of doing something productive, he wastes his time behind a computer talking bad about people....I'm not going to waste my time with that."Al Carroll analyzes Gibson's comments:When a man like Mel Gibson, raised by a "fundamentalist Catholic" who asserts the Holocaust was a hoax and the Catholic Church is too liberal and too modern, calls Yeagley a hateful man, that should tell us all just how extreme Yeagley's political and religious fundamentalism is.

When the maker of a notoriously inaccurate and stereotyped movie (Apocalypto, in case there's any doubt) denounces Yeagley as driven by jealousy and unhappiness with his own life, then maybe Yeagley should take the advice of this more famous bigot to heart.

Details of Mad Mel's outburst

Sharp-Tongued Gibson Takes Teacher to SchoolLauren Robeson, the editor in chief of the Daily Sundial, CSUN's student newspaper, told E! News that Estrada asked Gibson how much research he had done and named several experts on Mayan culture and asked whether he had read any of their books.

According to Robeson, Gibson said that he was familiar with one of those authors, had visited the ruins, seen the murals and was up-to-date on his Mayan history.

Then, Estrada told him that his portrayal of the Mayas as bloodthirsty fans of human sacrifice was "inaccurate and exaggerated." (Meanwhile, event organizers kept lowering the professor's microphone, apparently hoping to avoid a scene, Robeson said.)

To which Gibson supposedly said, "Oh yes, and you are a f---king troublemaker, so f---k off."Comment:  See Mel Goes Ballistic--"Lady, F**k Off!" for more on the story.

Gibson can't handle truth

Gibson, Professor Trade Barbs Over FilmMel Gibson exchanged angry words with a university professor who challenged the accuracy of his film "Apocalypto" at an on-campus screening. Gibson was answering questions from the crowd at California State University, Northridge, Thursday night when Alicia Estrada, an assistant professor of Central American studies, accused the actor-director of misrepresenting the Mayan culture in the movie. Gibson directed an expletive at the woman, who was removed from the crowd.

"In no way was my question aggressive in the way that he responded to it," Estrada said. "These are questions that my peers, my colleagues, ask me every time I make a presentation. These are questions I pose to my students in the classroom."

300, like Apocalypto

'300' mixed messages

The film's team says no big statements were intended. Sure. We believe that.Someday, maybe, the "entertainment defense" will no longer hold water. But for now, we're slogging through the era of the completely implausible denial. Like many films that seem to riff on everything without stooping to make a point (which would be just so hopelessly earnest and dorky), "300" proudly claims to be about nothing. Or rather, like another type of purchased pleasure, it claims to be about anything you want it to be. As long as a movie is dumb and violent enough, it can quote whatever cultural allusion is handy, then deny that it did with impunity.

Granted, as hard to buy as these denials are, their claim to meaninglessness does seem entirely possible. Sure, Frank Miller, on whose graphic novel the movie was based, has a political point of view. On NPR's "Talk of the Nation" last month he expressed his dismay about the "state of the home front" and his disappointment at the fact that "nobody seems to be talking about who we're up against—and the 6th century barbarism that they"—by which he meant not just terrorists, but entire civilizations—"actually represent." (He also, incidentally, quoted philosopher Will Durant's line—"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within"—which opened "Apocalypto," another movie that was either a comment on our current political situation—or not.)More criticism of 300's depiction of Persians:Most of the "Persians" were not played by actual Persians. The casting consist of people with heavy make up, stereotypically dressed. It offers a racialized depiction of Persians as exotic and barbarous monsters without any accurate or authentic representations of Persia or its people.

Xerxes is demasculinized with painted eyebrows and wears heavy lipstick. If this is not orientalism, then I don't know what is. The great commander is painted as feminine and the movie suggests that he's sexually ambiguous, both in the way he looks and the way he acts--leading to a generalization of an exotic culture. I'm not sure if the film makers were trying to equate sexual ambiguity/feminine characteristic with weakness on purpose, but that's what I got from the film.

Persia is full of mythical creatures and Xerxes will do anything to win this war. This all goes back to the orientalist idea of Asia as exotic and mysterious, where the Persians use mystical magic and animals and plays dirty, while the good old Spartans just use their bodies and spears.Comment:  Compare Leonidas and the Persian messenger in the trailer. They're very clearly meant to be different ethnic types.

Gibson to do it again

Mel Gibson may shoot two new moviesHollywood filmmaker Mel Gibson reportedly has his eyes set on two new movies, and he may soon visit locations in Panama for his next directorial effort.

According to the International Herald Tribune, Gibson and his son Edward met and dined with tourism spokesman and singer Ruben Blades recently.

At the same time, the paper reports that Panamanian filmmaker Jose Severino was in negotiations with Gibson to produce a movie about Spanish explorer Vasco Nunez de Balboa, the first European to see the Pacific Ocean from its eastern shore.

Maybe Mel was confused

A comment from a correspondent:Perhaps Mel Gibson got the Maya confused with the Aztecs.Maybe, but more likely he just didn't care. He had a so-called expert adviser, after all. I think he wanted to do the human sacrifices and the collapsing civilization, so he needed to conflate the Aztecs with the Maya. The Aztecs didn't fall, they were conquered, so their sacrifice-based culture didn't offer a lesson about how villains destroy themselves.

A fundamenalist view of Apocalypto

Apocalypto Should Be Required Viewing for Those Indoctrinated with the Humanistic Prejudices Against ChristianityThe brutality and cruelty of the Mayan society has been well documented and has been confirmed by archeological excavations which have uncovered huge graveyards of many hundreds of thousands of skeletons, and skull racks with tens of thousands of skulls impaled on poles. It is estimated that the ritual sacrifice of humans to Aztec gods reached up to 50,000 a year, and by the Mayans over 20,000 a year, before the Spaniards invaded and put an end to this holocaust of human sacrifice.

It is remarkable how many archeologists and historians, while acknowledging that the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas had not yet invented the wheel, continuously describe these societies as "sophisticated", "high cultures", "extremely advanced and complex", with "intricate", economic systems, etc. While off-handedly acknowledging that their tremendous architectural achievements were actually built by slave labour, and were in fact for human sacrifices (to make the sun rise each day), the enthusiasm and admiration for these decadent and brutal slave masters and mass murderers is extraordinary. Anyone tempted to join this love affair of so many Humanists for the Mayan and Aztec "civilizations" need to see this film.Comment:  It was good of this evangelist to make Apocalypto's implicit message explicit. Of course, some critics understood and explained the movie's subtext, but most missed it entirely.

See This Ain't No Party, This Ain't No Disco:  A Columbus Day Rant and The Myth of Western Superiority for a response to this fellow's way of "thinking."

Mel's drunken Maya dance

Harjo:  MacacalyptoThe ensemble of "Mexican and Native American nonprofessionals move with a collective grace that would make Paul Taylor ache," wrote another reviewer. "Their limber movements, upright poise and the sonorous beauty of their Yucatek Maya language amount to a primitive human symphony."

And there's the magic message word: "primitive." Several reviewers picked up on that one. One characterized the Maya as the "most brutal of human civilizations," with "false religion" and "false gods."

Most of the "primitive" movements came directly from Gibson's head (or bottle, or both).

During his post-rehab apology tour, he appeared on Disney/ABC's "20/20" in an interview that showed location footage of Gibson teaching the actors and extras to dance a "Maya" dance. He flailed and threw himself around in an ungraceful fit of "religious" ecstasy, as his astonished cast attempted to duplicate his movements. It was primitive, all right.

Maya scorn Apocalypto

MEL MEL MEL (Gibson, that is) His Movie, His Motives. And Indians.With more than half the population of Guatemala descendants of the Mayan people, it is not hard to see why they are up in arms over the movie Apocalypto that promotes the lies that were originally made to mask the wholesale murder of a race of Natives along with the theft of the prized gold. Surly.

So now Mel is making the “Big Bucks” with this film. The Maya also believe that Mel has sent them back many years as a culture since they have been struggling since the conquest. They also feel the movie is derogatory and demeaning to say the very least. And, of course, it promotes many lies about their culture and history.

Comments on Apocalypto coverage

From a teacher:As a social studies teacher, I am regularly frustrated by Hollywood's sensationalism and distortions--through sly deceit, innuendo, outright lies, all their methods!--and this certainly appears to be the most recent example of movies at their worst. I wish Mel would stick to acting.

I often use information you've provided me as basis of lesson plans and I promise you my students are learning to analyze and think for themselves instead of swallowing the garbage they're fed regularly via the media (and I do mean ALL media--printed, broadcast, movies, etc.!).

Thank you for continuing to make my job easier and for bringing light to a world that often has its eyes closed.From a correspondent:I don't think it was a problem that you posted so many Apocalypto articles. As you said, the presence of them accurately reflected what was going on. By the way? Count me as one of those whom you said wrote to you to say that they were influenced NOT to see it because of the coverage on Newspaper Rock.

Apocalypto = propaganda

Weinberg:  Mel Gibson's heart of darknessGibson has made a piece of propaganda for the ravaging of indigenous lands and culture. The Maya are still around--and they have been the victims of genocide as recently as the 1980s, when the Guatemalan military's counterinsurgency campaign reached its horrific climax. The 1999 findings of the United Nations-backed Guatemala Historical Clarification Commission estimated 200,000 dead in the civil war, squarely accusing the Guatemalan state of “genocide.” Yet this genocide never came to the conscience of the world the way that the genocide in Bosnia just 10 years later would.

“Apocalypto” is ultimately propaganda against not only the Maya, but indigenous peoples worldwide. And while revealing nothing about the Maya (other than the sound of one of their tongues, presented out of historical and geographic context), it reveals a great deal about Mel Gibson--and our civilization generally.

Apocalypto's howlers

Weinberg:  Mel Gibson's heart of darknessAn examination of how the film falsifies history could be dismissed as mere pedantry if it weren't for “Apocalypto's” implicit claim to accuracy. Once again, the film's most ostentatious claim to veracity is actually an embarrassing howler. For all the effort that went into coaching the cast in a Maya tongue, Mel got the language wrong.

The Maya language used in “Apocalypto” is Yucatecan. Yet the film is obviously set in the “Classic Maya” era, as both the lush rainforest setting and the architecture and costumes of the sets indicate. The language spoken in the Classic Maya city-states was Cholan, not Yucatecan. And the linguistic error is compounded by a blatant glitch in elementary chronology.

It was necessary to place the action in the Classic era in order to have the spectacle of elaborate stone city-states in the jungle. But the Classic civilization flourished from roughly 300 to 900 CE--making nonsense of the film's premise of the Spanish conquistadors arriving to deal a declining civilization a coup de grace. After the decline of the Classic city-states in what is now the Peten rainforest of Guatemala and Chiapas, there was a “Late Maya” renaissance in the Yucatan Peninsula to the north. The Late Maya would have spoken something akin to today's Yucatecan. But the environment in the Yucatan is savanna, not the lush jungle portrayed in the movie. And Gibson's sets are clearly modeled on the Classic sites, especially Tikal. Furthermore, the Late Maya cities also collapsed after around 400 years--that is, at least a century before the arrival of the Spanish. There were no major Maya ceremonial city-states still inhabited when Cortez appeared on the Yucatan coast in 1519.