The 'deception' of 'Apocalypto'Worse than the lies the teacher tells are the lies that top scholars tell. Like that genocidal warfare, rape from sexually repressed soldiers, racial enslavement and global conquest were a part of everyday American Indian life. You may have already heard your children say, "Indians had slaves, too"; "Indians murdered and raped each other, too"; "Indians stole the lands of others, too." These lies void responsibility and accountability of the racial enslavement of Africans in America, the genocidal warfare practiced against American indigenous people and the thievery of their land.
Indians must be especially aware of these types of lies because they set up an even greater lie--that Indians were equally or more violent than the Spanish, English or French colonizers of America; or that the Roman Catholic Church saved Indians from themselves.
"Apocalypto" is a movie that takes these lies to the fullest extent possible. After you watch this film you may be wrongfully convinced that it was the Mayan who stole land from your ancestors; you may begin to think that it was the Mayan who burned the villages of your ancestors; you may begin to believe that it was the Mayan who tied up Indian men and raped their wives while they watched powerlessly; you may be convinced that the Mayan were the culprits who brought smallpox to decimate the indigenous American populations; you will probably be convinced that Indians taught Europeans racism and racial slavery; you will be lied to while watching this movie, and you will mistakenly be thankful that Europeans came and saved your ancestors from their own demise.
Conclusion:Gibson may have the resources and ability to do some good research on existing Native peoples; perhaps this trend will catch on in big Hollywood. But still, in terms of historical research, a high school senior could have done better than his entire "Apocalypto" team.
Comment: I've yet to see a single source that says Apocalypto
is historically accurate. If someone has such a source, please present it.
Writerfella here --
Interesting item, but there is a fairly obvious characteristic present that reduces its cogency. Having been a writer fella for most of his sixty-five years, writerfella reasonably can observe that, in journalistic writing, there is a far worse offender than the editorial 'we'. And that is the editorial 'you'. Count the number of times that the pronoun 'you' appears in the text and, if it is more than five, its typer fairly frothed at the mouth and shouted the words out loud while he typed. Notice the subject used is 'typer' and that the verb is 'typed', for screed rarely is written or produced as free of emotional rant. Shout out the words yourself and recreate the typer's moment of fury. Sort of Mad Max-like, wasn't it?
Maybe, but the writer makes an important point: that Mel Gibson lied about the Maya throughout Apocalypto.
Noted that Gibson used some sort of expert to create a veneer of authenticity but still got the key points wrong. That seems like prima facie evidence that he intentionally falsified Maya history and culture to promote his agenda.
Writerfella here --
But the point you miss, as have most others posting critical anent the film APOCALYPTO, is that movies ARE lies. They never happened and they are far from being history, they instead are fiction and fictitious statements, and they are art imitating life. To require of art that it simply be composed of truth and reality is to deprive its artistic aims of the very creativity and imagination that make such possible. What most such critics miss is that if art were as mundane and ordinary as their own lives, it wouldn't fly. And that is what makes critics the most angry of all...
I haven't missed your point. I'm simply fulfilling my mission to point out the lies and stereotypes. If they're there, I note 'em.
You're the one that claims Gibson's version of the Maya matches your decades of research. You know, the research you conveniently won't provide a source for or share with us? In other words, you're saying Gibson told us the truth while I'm saying he told us lies.
More precisely, you started by saying he told us the truth after critics pointed out specific lies. When that didn't work, you retreated to the inevitable "all movies are lies" rationalization. That's called trying to have it both ways.
Too bad I'm here to point out the contradiction in your positions. If every movie is a fiction, why are you bothering to tell us about your research? It's irrelevant to a movie filled with lies like Apocalypto.
So again, is Apocalypto historically accurate or isn't it? Pick "yes" or "no" and stick with your answer. Stop trying to shift positions when I catch you in a contradiction.
As for the aspersions you cast on critics, they're flatly ridiculous. I don't criticize works of fiction because I'm a frustrated artist. I write fiction myself, and there's no conflict between that and my criticism of others.
In fact, I criticize only the works that deserve it. If a work doesn't stereotype Indians--e.g., Christmas in the Clouds, COMANCHE MOON, or The Truth About Stories--I don't search for things to criticize about it. I give it the praise it deserves.
Post a Comment