Apocalypto

[Dubversion]

Perhaps then the opposite of Apocalypto is something like Downfall, which is lauded for its factual accuracy and fidelity. I found Downfall a well acted, well scripted film but for me it was one of the most turgid films I've ever sat through, despite a mesmeric performance from Bruno Ganz as Hitler.

But what else could it be? something that clearly states its intention to offer a dramatisation of real life events can only be as exciting as those events. So whether or not Downfall is turgid is history's fault.

I wouldn't care if Gibson had made some dumbass movie about Mayans that didn't stake any claim on veracity, history or whatever. It'd probably be dodgy racist crap, but that's Hollywood. If you're going to dress your movie up as some form of truth, you're making a rod for your own back if you don't live up to that. Well, tough

 

[Dubversion]

If he'd shot the film with heavy american accents from the actors would you have been happier?

not especially, because I have my own feelings about how Gibson's catholic views impact on the story he's telling and about the the civilising influence of European Christianity. But in a sense, it would help reduce the suggestion of authenticity he's keen to plant in people's brains about this film

 

[Sigmund Fraud]

But what else could it be? something that clearly states its intention to offer a dramatisation of real life events can only be as exciting as those events. So whether or not Downfall is turgid is history's fault.

If Downfall had been a drama docu it would probably have been riveting; but as historical dramatisation it sucked; even United 93 had a few action movie clichés that didn't diminish the story one bit or make stuff up - thus proving that you can render a reasonably true account of history and still entertain the audience.

 

[Dubversion]

I think with a subject as recent and as problematic as Hitler, though, they were very wary indeed of taking any dramatic liberties...

 

[Sigmund Fraud]

and 9/11 isn't recent or problematic?

but I take you point, if it hadn't have been Germans making that film there would have been more room for artistic licence.

 

[Dubversion]

Haven't seen United 93, so i can't comment

 

[goldenecitrone]

I read that Apocalypto also has undertones of anti-semitism if you know enough theology. That sneaky fucker.

 

[Reno]

and 9/11 isn't recent or problematic?

but I take you point, if it hadn't have been Germans making that film there would have been more room for artistic licence.

Maybe it's problematic, but an effort was made to be as accurate to the real event as possible under the circumstances.

There are of course all sorts of ways to approach a real event or story and I don't believe films have to be 100% accurate as long as they bring along something of else that is of interest. Bonnie & Clyde was only accurate to the mythology of the characters rather than the reality, but it reflected the cultural and political shifts in 60's America and as a piece of filmmaking was something previously unseen in US cinemas.

All Apocalypto does is to appeal to people basest instincs. It does so being tarted up like some 70's Werner Herzog film, but it's not much more interesting than most Hollywood action fare. I don't mind mainstream Hollywood films and don't think all of them are stupid and sometimes the stupid ones can be fun too. What irritates me about this is that it pretends to be more, but all it does for me is to expose Mel Gibson's arrogance.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

If Downfall had been a drama docu it would probably have been riveting; but as historical dramatisation it sucked; even United 93 had a few action movie clichés that didn't diminish the story one bit or make stuff up - thus proving that you can render a reasonably true account of history and still entertain the audience.

I thought Downfall was a brilliant film, for what it's worth.

 

[JohnC]

'...the film serves as a justification for what came next'

I have to say I didn't see it as making that point at all. Rather the opposite, in fact. The nobility was allocated to Jaguar Paw and the arrival of the Spanish was played as extremely (but pretty subtly) threatening.

I'm not sure that people read far too much into movies nowadays. Doesn't anyone go to the cinema just to be entertained any more? I don't feel the need to be lectured on the subject unless I deliberately seek out a movie that states that as its point. V for Vendetta is a reasonable case in point. I was a great fan of the comics and I loved the film even though it was implausible, if not impossible, for things to happen the way they were presented. It was fantasy - and so is Apocalypto, albeit presented in a completely different - and entertaining - way.

Oh, and I'm Jewish and I certainly didn't spot any anti-semitism. If it was in there, it was bloody well masked.

 

[Reno]

'...the film serves as a justification for what came next'

I have to say I didn't see it as making that point at all. Rather the opposite, in fact. The nobility was allocated to Jaguar Paw and the arrival of the Spanish was played as extremely (but pretty subtly) threatening.

I'm not sure that people read far too much into movies nowadays. Doesn't anyone go to the cinema just to be entertained any more?.

I believe most people don't really question what they watch when it comes to Hollywood films. I need a certain level of intelligence at work for me to be engaged and entertained.

Oh, and I'm Jewish and I certainly didn't spot any anti-semitism. If it was in there, it was bloody well masked.

Who has seen the film and accused it of anti-semitism ?

 

[Diamond]

For what it's worth I don't think the film was advertised as a historical narrative, nor do I think it's attempting to score any historical points.

It looked to me like a myth (particularly the bog scene) and it seemed like it was advertised as one, in which case filming in Mayan is perfectly sensible.

Beyond that all this stuff about Gibbo being a twat is perfectly sensible, but we seem to be able to divorce many people and their work in other scenarios. It seems oh-so-fashionable to hate on Gibbo right now.

 

[JohnC]

Who has seen the film and accused it of anti-semitism ?

It was mentioned a couple of posts back by goldenecitrone is all.
'I read that Apocalypto also has undertones of anti-semitism if you know enough theology. That sneaky fucker.'

 

[Strumpet]

I really enjoyed it.
I found it exciting and captivating. Beautiful scenery, lovely soundtrack.

I always have an open mind about films.......I listen/read reviews but ultimately go and see what I think I might like. I was very slightly put off by the fact it was Gibson, but, was definately not disappointed.

 

[Reno]

It was mentioned a couple of posts back by goldenecitrone is all.
'I read that Apocalypto also has undertones of anti-semitism if you know enough theology. That sneaky fucker.'

I doesn't appear that goldenecitrone has seen the film and is quoting something read somewhere and only half remembered, so it's not really a valid criticism. I believe Gibson himself is anti-semitic, but it would really be a stretch to accuse him of an anti-semitism in Apocalypto.

 

[sleaterkinney]

It's quite good, an enjoyable film if you can stand a little bit of gore(it's not that bad). Well paced, good characters, good story etc.

'...the film serves as a justification for what came next'
No, remember the scene around the campfire where the old bloke was telling them about man taking everything etc... Plus the tagline - A civilisation cannot be conquored until it destroys itself from within .

 

[Dubversion]

Plus the tagline - A civilisation cannot be conquored until it destroys itself from within .

sounds to me like an EXPLICIT example of the point Gibson is trying to make, rather than any kind of contradiction

 

[inflatable jesus]

I seen it a couple of weeks ago. It was okay. I was hoping for a bit more detail about the politics of the Mayan civilization and wasn't really expecting it to turn into Mayan Rambo, but there you go.

I thought that it was visually quite good in parts (specifically the Mayan city bit) but that's about the onle thing that was in any way impressive.

 

[DJWrongspeed]

If Downfall had been a drama docu it would probably have been riveting; but as historical dramatisation it sucked; even United 93 had a few action movie clichés that didn't diminish the story one bit or make stuff up - thus proving that you can render a reasonably true account of history and still entertain the audience.

? ? I just don't get it, Downfall was easily one of the most powerful films I've seen in the last 10yrs. (seen in cinema, which makes a big difference) What was dull & turgid about it? Is it what we bring to the film that gives it it's gravitas?

 

[Sigmund Fraud]

I saw it in the cinema too. For me it was dull because it was played so straight. My brain was switched on and I was registering the horror of the field hospital, the Goebbels killing their children etc etc and I couldn't fault the acting or sets...but I left the cinema feeling almost nothing. I felt I'd seen an extremely well executed historical re enactment. I realise I'm in the minority on this.

 

[gaijingirl]

I saw it last night and really enjoyed it - although the obligatory "leaping off a waterfall" scene did make me laugh out loud at a most inappropriate moment!!

 

[Gramsci]

I think with a subject as recent and as problematic as Hitler, though, they were very wary indeed of taking any dramatic liberties...

They did take historical liberties which fed into how it was made dramarically.Most of the film was based around the memories of those who were there ie fully paid up Nazis or Hitlers secretary-whose memories would be selective.In Germany the film was criticised for humanising Hitler to much and some of those around him.The doctor who stayed behind to tend the wounded is an example.In reality he was a dedicated Nazi with a dubious medical past.

All films take "liberties".Downfall,whilst an excellant film,needs to be treated with caution as a definitive historical statement.

 

[Gramsci]

I believe most people don't really question what they watch when it comes to Hollywood films. I need a certain level of intelligence at work for me to be engaged and entertained.

Im not sure what u mean by Hollywood films.After all Gibson now made several films that arent the usual Hollywood fare.Braveheart,the one about Christ and now this one.None of these are constructed as blockbusters or romantic comedies with Jude Law etc.

They are all idiosyncratic films which have done well at the box office.By the way none of my Scottish or Irish friends have any complaints about Braveheart despite its unhistorical portrayel of English people .Seems to me a lot of the criticism of Gibson started when he delved into religion.

What I would say is that we see little of film that is produced outside the west which might provide an alternative view to Western filmmakers.

 

[sleaterkinney]

sounds to me like an EXPLICIT example of the point Gibson is trying to make, rather than any kind of contradiction

And it was a point I heard several times when I was over in mexico, they were an unbelivablely savage race, . But saying that it ok's what came afterwards is tenous at best, the hero in the film turns away from the conquistadores, he doesn't join up with them.

 

[Maltin]

The hype behind the film and the way the film seems to be structured is as some kind of historical account. And on this, it apparently fails in every fucking respect.

I don't think the film is structured as some kind of historical account.

It's a chase film pure and simple, set in the Mayan civilization. It's not meant to be a history lesson.

 

[Maltin]

but in the end Gibson just peddles his Christian agenda by depiciting the Mayans as brutal savages who deserved to be "civilised". Of course the real genocide that happened was what the Spanish did the the Mayans after they landed.

I don't see the film like that at all. I can't see where in the film it suggests that they deserve to be civilised and that they aren't happy as they are.

As others have pointed out, I think the film ultimately leaves you feeling sad that their lives are about to be ruined.

 

[Maltin]

Truth in this case is not necessarily about library facts and statistics. It means two things: (a) the film being consistent with itself, and (b) the film not contradicting the knowledge of the audience. For example, Troy completely ignored that in the poem gods and godesses were as important characters as humans, or that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers, therefore the film was not true to the poem or to itself. And it was very bad on top.

I doubt Apocalypto does contradict the knowledge of the audience the film is for.

Yes, people with extensive knowledge of the civilization may find parts of it crass, but I think most films would cause consternation to those knowledgeable about the subject in a film.

I have not read The Iliad, but I thought Troy was very good.

 

[Maltin]

I thought the film was pretty good entertainment.

It took us to a world we have not seen much before (despite it apparently not being fully accurate), which is always good.

 

[Reno]

One thing I will give to Gibson is that unlike so many films that come out of Hollywood his work isn't cynical and that he genuinely believes in what he does. Unfortunately I just don't like what he is about and that this is only too transparent in his work.

 

[JohnC]

I've just watched Dowfall (we are talking about Der Untergang here, yes?) and found it a bloody good film. Entirely different on every level to Apocalypto though.