"The Mayans were far more interesting to us," Safinia says. "You can choose a civilization that is bloodthirsty, or you can show the Mayan civilization that was so sophisticated with an immense knowledge of medicine, science, archaeology and engineering ... but also be able to illuminate the brutal undercurrent and ritual savagery that they practiced. It was a far more interesting world to explore why and what happened to them."
4 comments:
Writerfella here --
Ah, you found the production shot! As writerfella said, Mel Gibson is not a director who sits comfortably in the shade while his actors suffer for their art. And that is what the many posts on this site about APOCALYPTO have missed: motion pictures are an artform, albeit a collaborative artform, and all who toil in that industry are artists. Because such an artform is so easily (and necessarily) accessible to any and all who wish to participate vicariously, and to praise or to snipe at their own discretions, movies remain the most vulnerable artistic expression of civilized mankind. No one would detract, therefore, from the public's right to pursue such ends. However, the public should remember one particular aspect of the situation: they are consumers only and rightfully can choose to attend the artform or to reject it. However, as consumers, they do not possess the right to attempt to prevent any other person from exercising the same choices. In a way, it is like human lifestyles; those who disapprove most certainly set themselves to eliminate that of which they disapprove. "They" make sure that they have a choice but, to their minds, no one else does...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
What your response misses is that movies and other artforms can be honest and authentic or disingenuous and stereotypical. Unfortunately, Apocalypto is the latter.
But no one is trying to prevent Gibson from exercising his constitutional right to make blood-soaked message films featuring Indians as barbaric savages who deserved to die. Criticism isn't censorship.
Writerfella here --
But few who criticize in fact make any such conscious distinction. Steve Allen once did comic routines by reading op-ed pieces or essay articles in the exact emotional voices with which they were written. One would only have to hear Doug George-Kanentiio's near-breathless essay article in its actual shrill and piping voice cadence to know that, if he could, he would punch or shoot) Mel Gibson for performing the film and then punch (or shoot) Rudy Youngblood for performing in the film. His stance that one should shoot the messenger especially is dangerous because now HE is the messenger...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
You could label the motives of anyone, from Jesus on down, as self-serving. Therefore, it's almost pointless to go into George-Kanentiio's motives. The criticism and its merits are what matter, not the reasons behind them.
Speaking as one who has criticized Gibson, I can assure you I don't want to censor or ban him. His Jew-baiting is nothing compared to the "apocalyptic" vision in his films. If he makes the Great Native American movie next time, I'll praise him as much as I've criticized him.
Post a Comment