When I first heard about this project, and later when I saw the early trailers, I halfway hoped that Mr. Gibson might turn out to be an American (or half-Australian) version of Werner Herzog, setting out into the jungle to explore the dark and tangled regions of human nature. Once you get past the costumes and the subtitles, though, the most striking thing about “Apocalypto” is how comfortably it sits within the conventions of mainstream moviemaking. It is not an obsessive opera like Mr. Herzog’s “Aguirre: The Wrath of God,” but rather a pop period epic in the manner of “Gladiator” or “Braveheart,” and as such less interested in historical or cultural authenticity than in imposing an accessible scheme on a faraway time and place."Aguirre: The Wrath of God" is on my very short list of favorite movies. (See my profile.) That "Aguirre" even gets mentioned in the review makes me more likely to partake of the new Mel-o-drama, even if the mention is only to say it's not quite like it.
December 8, 2006
"Apocalypto" is not "Aguirre."
From the NYT review of Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto":
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
He can 'fancy-up' ripping and rending pretty well, slap on some morality and rake in the cash, that much is for certain. Mel has been laughing all the way to the bank for some time now. I do give him credit for giving some exposure and cash to Indians.
It is always fun to read the review of someone who is upset the movie maker didn't make the movie the reviewer wanted it to be while never acknowledging that his own ability to make any movie approaches zero.
Right, Tim.
And I also would take a NYT review with a grain of salt.
Um, critics are paid to review movies. Directors are paid to make them.
That a critic couldn't make a movie is irrelevant. I can't drywall a house, but that doesn't give contractors I hire the right to do a shit job and not expect complaints from me about it.
Better way to say it:
"This is not an Aguirre."
We currently have tribal cultures using excessive violence in Iraq for political purposes and this reviewer wants to romanticize the Mayans as being civilized? Mel don't ya know the meme, the indians were a peaceful socialist collective until the evil Europeans came along.
Sorry, I meant civilized in terms of non-violent liberalism we enjoy. Of course the Mayans were a civilization.
whatever mel's film does, i bet it can't come close to "Incident at Loch Ness". Viva Herzog, Viva Kinski and Viva Althouse!
Coco,
"as such less interested in historical or cultural authenticity" That is code word for romantic belief that these people weren't the savages they were.
I posted a bit about the movie here although my interest has been more in the portrayal of Maya civilization that the film itself. See, I'm such a heathen I use "film" and "movie" interchangeably.
So far, the only rumblings I've heard (see the links in that post) are whether or not the Maya actually practiced the sort of mass sacrifices supposedly portrayed on film. There's not a whole lot of evidence for it, but that doesn't mean a whole lot in my view, since it's only fairly recently that violence has even been considered as part and parcel of ancient societies.
Still, if anyone has links to articles on what archaeologists/Mayanists are saying, please make a comment there with a link.
And say what you will about him — about his problem with booze or his problem with Jews — he is a serious filmmaker.
This sentence has a "problem." It's inappropriate and distracting.
As for biases, coco, you can partake of "serious and intelligent" critic A. O. Scott’s philosophy of film criticism here. In a nutshell, it's You're Stupid, I'm Not.
But perhaps you are smarter than the rest of us as well and would not take offense at his arrogant blather. To each her own--I prefer to make up my own mind about movies.
class-factotum,
Sadly, I believe your story.
And then did the evil white men give them 'smallpox-infected blankets'?
PatCA wrote;
As for biases, coco, you can partake of "serious and intelligent" critic A. O. Scott’s philosophy of film criticism here. In a nutshell, it's You're Stupid, I'm Not.
Oh, it's worse than that, Pat - it's the old standby "Why aren't you stupid plebs paying attention to your betters?" Well, Mr. Scott, it might help if you mandarin posturing was backed up with something remotely in the vicinity of wit, style and insight? THe New York Times film criticism is almost as embarrasing as its book coverage, and that's saying a lot.
Post a Comment