Apocalypto
Liberal pundits hate it because it's a Mel Gibson flick. Conservative pundits hate it because it's got all the sadomasochism of
The Passion of the Christ with none of the Jesus. Still others hate it because it makes the Mayans (currently in vogue with the neo-spiritual set) out to be no less a pack of bloody-minded lunatics than the Aztecs, despite having cooler earplugs and being covered in tribal tattoos, organic paint and Darren Aronofsky's jism.
But it's a bloody marvelous movie... admittedly, with an accent on the bloody.
I walked into this flick expecting to be utterly underwhelmed and come out with some snappy little comments about the religious imagery, but I got nothing. Sure, if you go looking for religious parallels you'll find them. The Mayan war-leader dragging his pack-train of slaves across the river looks everso like Moses trying to part the Red Sea for the Israelites... 'cept the river doesn't part. There's a prophecy about the hero, but it's uttered by a plague-ridden little girl looking (and sounding) more like Alia from
Dune telling the Emperor that brother Paul is coming to kill him than a John the Baptist. One of the Mayans jokingly names Jaguar Paw (the protagonist) 'Almost'... String a bunch of these together and you could make an argument for the Catholic missionaries with the arriving conquistadors being the fulfillment of true prophecy of salvation as opposed to the false and cynical religions practiced by the Mayans and natives. You
could, but you'd be bringing something to the story that truly
isn't there. The Spaniards (absent from all but the briefest moments of the film) bring no salvation, but rather a new and dangerous variable to a life already being turned upside down for the hero. If Jaguar Paw is supposed to be a Christ figure, then he's a Christ who kills and worships pagan gods. Believe it or not,
Apocalypto is
not a Christian movie.
What it
is is an engaging and visually impressive chase scene strung out for the length of a feature film and managing to touch base on filial love, social order, man vs. nature, duty, religion, etc in the process. Yeah, it has its flaws. Mel seems to have reticence about showing the bared breasts of the actresses and will often go out of his way to hide them despite their nakedness - long hair, necklaces, odd beaded breast-baskets (I can think of no other word for them. You'll see what I mean.) People also seem to have some very mixed notions of clothing. Some of the children are naked, some wear little loincloths, some full sackcloth tunics. The clothing that does appear is almost all tattered - as if the culture used to know how to sew but uniformly lost the knowledge about 20 years prior. There's a couple close-ups where you have to wonder how a group that could sew such a fine tight weave couldn't thatch huts worth a damn. And, of course, even in the damp jungle anything you apply fire to will burst into flame like dry tinder. But that's nitpicking.
The acting is marvelous, the dialogue flows naturally despite being in a language that, if anyone, only a few of the extras would have spoken natively, the piercings, tattoos and scarification all first rate, the scenery is lush (though some shots are marvelous, he could have done better with a cinematographer with a better eye - but Sempler's been with Mel since the
Mad Max days, so he makes some points back for loyalty).
Ignore the reviews. Go and see it on a big screen.
Current Mood:
contemplative