comment #1

Nicol D says ...

Another reviewer who saw the film reviewed it on AICN and said the film opens with the same quote as the teaser; that before a civilization can be destroyed from without, it must be destroyed from within.

She said this made no sense in the film. If Gibson keeps pushing the Iraq War, human sacrifice angle, the viewers confusion makes perfect sense.

For the quote and the film to work as a metaphor, the Mayan culture must be seen as a stand-in for current Western or American culture, with all of the different in-fighting factions.

Hence the two tribes in the film could be seen as right and left, one determined to cannibalize the other. The Spanish colonists then could be seen as that which either side sees as potentially destroying the West or America (radical Islam, secularism, ridgid Christianity, take your pick, etc.)

Based on what I have read, for the film to work as proper metaphor, Gibson should probably drop the Iraq comments and focus on in-fighting within America itself. People can read into the film for themselves which side is which.

comment #2

TKC says ...

"One of the reasons Louis Black and I are friends and have known each other for the last 30 years is that we love High Art and Low Art. And most of all we love it when the two converge."

Harry Knowles was a very precocious five-year-old.

comment #3

Dan Revill says ...

Was? I sometimes get the feeling he still is.

comment #4

zoey says ...

The Mayans could be a cautionary tale for a lot of countries.

Because of the violence noted, I am figuring that the movie stresses the bloody warfare between Mayan city states, as stronger chiefs use torture and sacrifice to subjugate weaker states.

I am wondering if Mel will throw in some of the reasons for the escalating breakdown of social order that made the Mayans ripe for Spanish conquest: overpopulation, drought, soil erosion, and crop failure due to deforestation.

I remember reading about the tourist who upon viewing the abandoned Mayan structures questioned his guide as to where all the Mayans had gone. He, of course, was addressing the question to a Mayan. As Amnesty Intl can attest, Mayan descendants occupy the lowest rungs on the economic and political ladders of the Yucatan even today.

comment #5

tholl-yung says ...

All you cry babies who were screaming release it now, free APOC and release it now, satisfied Mel needs all the time he can get?

comment #6

Craptastic says ...

finally... he's got a point.

Ever wonder why Wells went with this new sign in crap?

Mel... get on it.

comment #7

D.Z. says ...

"For the quote and the film to work as a metaphor, the Mayan culture must be seen as a stand-in for current Western or American culture, with all of the different in-fighting factions. Hence the two tribes in the film could be seen as right and left, one determined to cannibalize the other."

From what I understand, the Mayans actually had an advanced civilization, but they didn't take care of their environment, and were wiped out. A film which serves as a better metaphor for Bush is "Caligula".

comment #8

NYCBusybody says ...

I think it's quite significant that many religious conservatives have been against the Iraq War, but have understandably held their tongue because when you're in a deeply-polarized "culture war", you stay behind the horse that brung you (i.e. the Republican Party).

Bush will not always be the face of the Republican Party, and his Iraq policies not the main issue behind it. Bush's approval dropped in large part because religious, social conservatives felt abandoned by him, with him focusing more on foreign policy (which they supported, but only half-heartedly, more out of political necessity then fervent agreement) than domestic policy.

The Iraq War may be a winning issue in 2006 for Democrats, because even many conservatives are tired of it, and aren't energized. But it signifies no change in political philosophy in this country by any means.

comment #9

Rich S. says ...

It appears to be a public relations masterstroke for Gibson. Drudge is reporting that both Time and Newsweek want to put Apocalypto on the cover. How do you draw attention away from the anti-Semitic comments? Easy- bash Bush and the war in Iraq. The media lemmings have quickly fallen in line.

comment #10

christian says ...

well, it'll be fun to watch michael medved squirm and lie his way out of another gibson-induced controversy....

comment #11

tholl-yung says ...

Mel oughta meet with the Pope and give him a hand with Muslims who think he's anti-semitic and Jews who think he's anti-semitic.

comment #12

D.Z. says ...

NYC: "The Iraq War may be a winning issue in 2006 for Democrats, because even many conservatives are tired of it, and aren't energized. But it signifies no change in political philosophy in this country by any means."

If you mean that narrow-minded bigots like yourself will still think hating gays, ignoring the needs of the elderly and letting the poor die in the streets is better than holding the Pentagon accountable for torturing and bombing people, but not protecting troops, then you're probably right.
The rest of us will hopefully keep Republiscum out of office for decades to come, and create a world which isn't polluted and flooded.

comment #13

NYCBusybody says ...

I don't hate gays any more than I hate the blind, or the deaf.

comment #14

NYCBusybody says ...

And the poor died in the streets of New Orleans because of generations of Democratic corruption in the city, and failed liberal "throw money at the problem" fiscal policies. Just to be fair, if we're accusing people of having blood on their hands.

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

NYC: "I don't hate gays any more than I hate the blind, or the deaf."

So if you love handicapped people, why do you support a guy who keeps gutting benefits for vets?

"And the poor died in the streets of New Orleans because of generations of Democratic corruption in the city,"

So the Dems picked Mike Brown to protect the city?

"and failed liberal "throw money at the problem" fiscal policies."

Yes, paying for levees is a waste of money, but bailing out refugees is cheap.

"Just to be fair, if we're accusing people of having blood on their hands."

Last time I checked, the Dems didn't prop up a dictator and supply him with chemical weapons to wipe out an entire population.

comment #16

Rich S. says ...

NYC,

Why are you baiting D.Z. again? God knows, the give-and-take can be entertaining, but it takes too long to scroll through. Although, to be fair, he's going to pick his fights no matter what you do:

NYC- "Babe Ruth was the greatest left-handed batter of all time."

D.Z.- Only because he played during a segregated era and the military-industrial complex stole the best years of Ted Williams' career.

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

>NYC- "Babe Ruth was the greatest left-handed batter >of all time."

>D.Z.- Only because he played during a segregated >era and the military-industrial complex stole the >best years of Ted Williams' career.

Hank Aaron would probably agree.

comment #18

Rich S. says ...

Except Aaron batted right.

comment #19

Nate West says ...

"I think it's quite significant that many religious conservatives have been against the Iraq War.."

On the contrary, religious conservatives see Bush as an instrument of God and the current turmoil in the Middle East as the first step toward fulfillment of Biblical prophecies; it's a signal that Christ is returning to us very soon.

You've obviously been skipping Sunday school.

comment #20

NYCBusybody says ...

No, Nate, FUNDAMENTALIST conservatives may believe that, but the majority of religious conservatives or religious conservative-leaning moderates are in many ways very different from Fundamentalist evangelicals, especially as to how it relates to foreign policy (Pat Buchanan's scathing attacks on the Iraq War being a notable example).

The fact that you don't know the difference between Fundamentalist conservatism and the much more moderate, traditional-family-value oriented evangelical conservatism isn't surprising, because you probably get your news and information from Michael Moore and The Daily Show.

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

"No, Nate, FUNDAMENTALIST conservatives may believe that, but the majority of religious conservatives or religious conservative-leaning moderates are in many ways very different from Fundamentalist evangelicals, especially as to how it relates to foreign policy (Pat Buchanan's scathing attacks on the Iraq War being a notable example)."

Pat Buchanan isn't really a religious conservative, as much as an isolationist. The fact that the majority of people who voted for Bush twice were religious says it all about the state of the country.

"The fact that you don't know the difference between Fundamentalist conservatism and the much more moderate, traditional-family-value oriented evangelical conservatism isn't surprising, because you probably get your news and information from Michael Moore and The Daily Show."

Apparently, family values means bombing families in other countries, while fining CBS for a nipple-slip.