"El Mel" and the Mad Maya ('Apocalypto' review)

The film, "Apocalypto", about the journey home of a Maya warrior captured for human sacrifice, has to be one helluva serious point on the side of Latinos. The film is shot so beautifully and the action sequences are nothing short of edge-of-your-seat excitement. I applaud Mr. Gibson for two things: using Native Americans to depict this opus of Latino history, as well as keeping it in the native language (well, as close to Ancient Maya as one can get). I only got one thing to say... "Wow." Never in a million years would someone so close to Hollywood (AND a non-Latino, to boot) give so much furious attention to detail about a piece of OUR Americana.

Just when U.S. immigration from Mexico was getting under the skin of many U.S. nationals, comes a film to bring back a bit of the glory (albeit in gory, realistic sequences) of the ancient Maya Empire. Although this film is truly epic and worthy of Oscar praise, I only wished that "El Mel" would have thought of showing that the Spaniards weren't exactly the "Saviours" of a bloodthirsty tribe of people. Yes... it is true... the Maya practiced human sacrifice and it must've been incredibly gruesome to depict graphically (this film doesn't even come close to showing those horrors), but the arriving Spainiards (at the end of the film) seemed to be a breath of fresh air amidst all the madness. They sure as heck weren't, but I guess that would take a whole OTHER story to tell, maybe even several more.

Mel Gibson opened up the film by stating that no great civilisation is ever conquered until it is first conquered from within. Hmmm. How does one take that? More than 60 million ancestors died under the brutality of the Spanish. Not one is shown to be at fault for the genocidal murders they committed. The ending can then be taken as one of those: "Here comes a strange group of people we've never seen before. Are they friend or foe?" If one sees it in this way, then the story all makes sense. I guess I just wish that more stories from Native Latino America showed a bit more of the resourcefulness and pride of our ancestral culture. The Maya did, after all, invent many things before Europe ever did. They even contemplated the concept of "Zero", not to mention influence many cultures around it, Taino Caribbean culture, as well. But, here, the Maya appear quite savage and brutal... not quite the great mathematicians we all grew up accepting (as a whole... they seemed quite surprised at the arrival of the solar eclipse... though maybe not the high priest, the one ripping out the hearts of men). At least they are shown in a respectful light from time to time throughout the film, which saves it from stereotypical hell. The costumes and the sets made it all authentic, but a question still nags at me... how is it that the Mayan civilisation (within the cities) seemed to continue BEYOND the A.D. 900's, when the Classical Mayan culture had already been on the verge of total collapse... almost 6 whole centuries before the Spanish were to even arrive? By this time, almost all the Mayan cities had been abandoned. This is a salient point that never resolves itself within the film, it can't. It's like dinosaurs and cavemen walking around planet Earth at the same time. It just isn't historically-true. Outside of this puzzling concept, it is STILL classic filmmaking at its best.

Not taking away from the wonder and awe created by this film, it is hard not to think how time suddenly warps by the end of this photoplay. For someone who is well-versed on Native Latino lore, this is difficult to accept.

Nevertheless, I still enjoyed this film and plan to buy it for my collection. I know that this is a first for us, and maybe more accurate depictions will follow this one. At least we got someone who believes that we (Latinos) had a history worth recounting on the silver screen.

Out of a possible 4 coconuts, Rydah Rates this one...

Movie Trailer

The following excerpt is from
the L.A. Times, "Selling Apocalypto"
by Robert W. Welkos (Times Staff Writer) 13 November 2006

"... Edward James Olmos, a leading voice in Latino cultural affairs, who said he was invited by Gibson to an early screening. Olmos, who brought along his grown son, Bodie, said he was unprepared for what he saw.

'I was totally caught off guard,' Olmos said in a recent phone interview from the set of 'Battlestar Galactica' in Vancouver, Canada. 'It's arguably the best movie I've seen in years. I was blown away.'

Olmos said he was not briefed beforehand by Gibson on the film. 'I just kind of sat down and bingo! It wasn't even in a screening room. It was like an office…. The screen drops down from the ceiling. I was sitting at an oval table.'

Olmos noted that the film tells the story of 'first-nation' people — those who were here long before Europeans landed on their shores. Olmos said the story is 'just breathtaking.'

As for Gibson's outburst and arrest, Olmos said that what director Elia Kazan did in the days of the Hollywood blacklist never made him avoid Kazan's brilliant films.

'Basically, if you watch Elia Kazan's movies, I could surely watch Mel Gibson's movie,' Olmos said. 'I think more damage was done understanding what Elia Kazan did [during the McCarthy era] than what Mel Gibson did. That's his problem and he has to live with it.'

Video which addresses film's inaccuracies

"Beowulf" Review (DVD Release 28 Feb 08)

"Beowulf" was one of those movies I had no intention on seeing. What grabbed my attention initially was the 3-D Technology used by Director Robert Zemeckis, and... the need to go "do something". The last time I had put on 3-D glasses, I was 13 years old and going to see a re-release of "House of Wax". That was 1983 and the cardboard glasses we used were red on one side and blue on the other, a standard since the 1950's. The difference between those films and this one was in the use of a more up-to-date digital technology called "Real-D". It made the images look incredibly well-defined and photo-realistic, though... I must admit... I was getting a slight headache in the beginning trying to get adjusted. The depth of field was actually pretty good. I took off my glasses to compare how far out of focus an isolated image had to be in order to be foreground, mid ground or background. The further away an isolated image on the screen WAS, the more out-of-focus that element would appear.

After I settled down into the story, I allowed myself to be taken into this "video-game" world of possibilities limited only by the boundaries of human imagination. Since I had read this poem way back in high school, I took it for what it was: a story about some Ancient Scandinavians who revelled in drink and debauchery and a hero who comes to kill their party-pooping "boogeymen"... Grendel, Grendel's Mother and a nameless Dragon. The film takes creative license and re-does the entire second act. A major omission was the killing of Grendel's mother. While the original story was still there, it was re-arranged. The third act seemed to progress at a very heart-pounding pace and concluded upon the hero's actual demise. The killing of Beowulf finalised everything. The intention of this film may have been to end with the funeral of Beowulf, but it sort of felt incomplete for me. I was left with a empty, non-conclusive feeling. I did feel like it was definitely worth the price of admission though.

Now, as for the violence and gore... this film was pretty excessive. I can see some people being repulsed by it. Some parts presented visual surprises accompanied by the ever-present shrieking from the caves whose effect was unnervingly clear, though I believe that this queasiness and outright repulsion was part of the experience. It might actually scare some older folks and give little kids bad dreams. As an artist myself, I can understand what it means to be responsible in terms of imagery and, for oppressed minorities in particular, the need to vary the different TYPES of images is necessary to avoid making films with redundant stereotypes. However, film- like any other art form- simply reflects society and its tastes.

That this film was actually made sort of points to the kinds of films that are popular in the U.S. Some of us go to be engrossed and entertained in a good story... others go for the special effects... some may even go to just lose themselves in an experience that they may never have in real life. Or, maybe perhaps violence is what many people really want to see. The U.S. sometimes works as a culture of fear, where "boogeymen" lurk everywhere. If we weren't so curious to see these things, we would not pay to see them. Perhaps, it is a way to look at something profane and unthinkable without actually being involved. I went to see a movie in 3-D. I had no idea how this was going to turn out. I mean, I read the poem before, so I knew there was going to be a lot of killing... but, damn... lol... it WAS pretty graphic. I began to wonder about the future of humanity in this Universe. After seeing a movie about something that took place over a thousand years ago, I pondered over how many millenia people have obeyed that predator instinct to murder and maim in action and word.

This movie conjured up a lot of thoughts, some political, some not. Nevertheless, this movie did evoke some pretty strong responses from me. Did I think it was a good film? Yes. It was a complete straightforward story: town has problem... hero rolls through town... hero gets rid of problem, but creates a new one by sleeping with the enemy (or the enemy's mother, in this case)... hero trades places with the town's king, fights off new problem, saves town, but dies in the process. This pretty much sums up the whole Age of Aries heroics we may have read in Classical Greek and Roman Studies (for those who have had to study this).

The characterisations seemed mostly focused on Beowulf and the King, who had their own little sub-plot going on: two men... sharing one female. In this case, a she-demon catalyst with high-heeled hooves and a very intrusive braid of hair. When the King states: "She's not my curse anymore", we reach an epiphany and are revealed the cyclical tormenting and temptuous nature of Grendel's mother.

Is this film for everyone? Well... everyone has different tolerance levels, so slap a rating on this one and move on. There are more films that will be coming at us in the near future, and, as the technology advances with each film the bar keeps getting raised. FX is all about finding illusion solutions, so any movie-specific method carries on into other films that proceed it. It would be nice to get past the gimmick stage though and worry more about effective stories that ring true even in a third dimension.

The story was good... some of the establishing shots/flying shots were really cool. That the camera can go ANYWHERE it wants in a CG animated tale is excellent. I'm not going to down the technology because I know it will keep improving, but I'd like to see more physical effects blended in with this. "Lord of the Rings" looks great because Peter Jackson used so many different methods to achieve his end goal (physical miniatures, as well as, CG). In this particular film, motion capture was used to create the meshes which would be later retro-fitted with texture, hair and cloth as per the director's wishes. Actors were still necessary to provide a sense of realism. There is still a way to go before actors are X'd out altogether, but that possibility may eventually arrive. The "glassy-eye" syndrome that is evident in the photo-realistic CG characters of today will eventually improve. I did notice, however, some really choppy shots where the motion of the characters did nothing but further erode believability. Fortunately, it was only a couple of shots.

We are being oriented towards new technologies almost every year. While we shouldn't pass up the new approaches, the film industry needs to realise that the tried and true ways should never be discarded. They should be added to the arsenal and used in symphony with the newer ways in order to achieve better cinematic solutions. Miniatures still convey a sense of realism... a sense of real-time volumetrics... and actors are still necessary for the audience to emotionally connect.

The Universe becomes more believable if the feeling that we can reach out and touch it is there. However, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't see more of these films because, at some point, this technology will be better evolved to further enhance the entertainment experience. Once the technology is here, we should immediately figure out new ways to interact with it in order to achieve our filmic goals.

Out of a possible 4 coconuts, Rydah Rates this one...