Sorry, can’t be bothered to put crap in order. Just copy pasting 1/5 movies from my files (short list because I use 1,5/5 a lot… and I used to be less critical when I was younger)…
Wild Orchid
Zandalee
Eijanaika
Bleeder
Eye Of The Beholder
Bulletproof Monk
Fair Game
Gojoe
Blueberry
The Fly 2
Twin Town
Sakuya: Slayer of Demons
Even Dwarfs Started Small
Gemini
Mortal Kombat 2
Heavenly Creatures
Underworld
Scary Movie
Tuli
Banlieue 13
Rope Cosmetology
Zero Woman 2
Total Western
Zebra Longue
Yesterday (2002)
[quote=“Angel”]
Offensive? Why? I thought it was a pretty good film.
[/quote]
I really dont want to harp on about this, I’ve had enough arguments with people about it already, but I’ll just say why I found it offenside and move on.
It completely misrepresented Mayan culture. It twisted it to look like a violent, waste of a society. But, because he included an archetype of the “noble savage”, one so you can say, “They weren’t all bad” it’s not supposed to be racist?
The Maya did commit some sacrifices, yes. But it is mainly believed that it was considered a pious act of self sacrifice, they didn’t go to villages to round up victims, and they certainly didn’t kill that many people all at once. Now the Aztecs are a different story. (Actually, the heart removing was once believed to be an Aztec custom, but thats even been disprovern. It never had anything to do with the Maya.) Yes the Mayan were at times violent to one another, but to cram it together the way in which they did is wrong. It’s like cramming many of the violent things any society has done in a century, and representing it as happening in a normal week.
Anyway, it was bugging me a bit, but once they got to the city…my god. They portrayed this people as so disgusting and revolting. Every scene seemed to be planned to turn these people intro animals, rather then an enlightened, developed culture. In fact, at their peak they are considered the “most densely populated and culturally dynamic societies in the world”. They had libraries, a fully written language, were very good at architecture, science and astronomy. They were a very developed, intellectual society.
It was this idea that they were savage that the Spanish used to control and use them at will (who were left of them, they reached their peak far before the Spanish arrived). Want a more contemporary example?
Traci Arden (assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Miami, who has studied Classic Maya society for over 20 years while living in modern Maya villages) writes that "Maya intellectuals have demonstrated convincingly that such ideas were manipulated by the Guatemalan army to justify the genocidal civil war of the 1970-1990s."
The Guatemlan Genocoide: "The Guatemalan government, using the Guatemalan Army and its counter-insurgency force (whose members defined themselves as ‘killing machines’), began a systematic campaign of repressions and suppression against the Mayan Indians, whom they claimed were working towards an communist coup…Working methodically across the Mayan region, the army and its paramilitary teams, including ‘civil patrols’ of forcibly conscripted local men, attacked 626 villages. Each community was rounded up, or seized when gathered already for a celebration or a market day. The villagers, if they didn’t escape to become hunted refugees, were then brutally murdered; others were forced to watch, and sometimes to take part. Buildings were vandalised and demolished, and a ‘scorched earth’ policy applied: the killers destroyed crops, slaughtered livestock, fouled water supplies, and violated sacred places and cultural symbols. "
So…there has been sustainable evidences that the reason many of those that committed these acts felt the right too, was the misrepresentation of the Mayan as violent and undeserving of mercy anyway. So really, Mel Gibson’s false representation cannot be dismissed as just entertaining, “leave him alone hes not making a documentary”. In fact, people react to this. Most people know little or nothing about the Maya, and when they see this, they assume its true. I work in a video store, and when they released this it was very popular (ESPECIALLY with teen aged to middle aged men) and I would hear many of them after returning it, or suggesting it to another customer, about how it “opened their eyes” to how violent and cruel the Maya were. It’s insanity.
Also, the last scene. That was the final slap in the face. Jaguar Paw, running from those who are trying to kill him, only to be (basically) rescued by the gallant Spanish, the cross on their ships. The others two stupid to realize who they are, get “what they deserve” the anniliation of their society. Thats the disgusting moral me and many others received. (But again, the archetypal “Noble savage”, somewhat wise but at the same time not overly smart, is safe, so Mel can’t really be that racist, can he? A FEW of them were good people. Ugh!)
There is a lot more I can discuss, but I have studying to do. I don’t blame the average movie goer, but really, this film is offensive and once again brutalizses an already brutalized group of people. Native Americans deserve our sympathy, at the very least for almost (and sometimes completely) wiping out their entire societies. They don’t deserve to be turned into monsters. We’ve already hurt them enough.
Plunderbunnie went to history class last week.
@ plunderbunnie
I see your point, but in my opinion Gibson’s only crime was to be so popular. Apocalypto is a first grade exploitation thriller but because it’s a Mel Gibson film there will be people who take it seriously. But on the other hand, isn’t it a bit unfair to say Gibson isn’t allowed to make these sort of films just because his name happens to be Mel Gibson? Or, alternatively, should we also judge all those thousands of exploitation films that the general public is not aware of? Ban even?
[quote=“Hung Fist”]
@ plunderbunnie
I see your point, but in my opinion Gibson’s only crime was to be so popular. Apocalypto is a first grade exploitation thriller but because it’s a Mel Gibson film there will be people who take it seriously. But on the other hand, isn’t it a bit unfair to say Gibson isn’t allowed to make these sort of films just because his name happens to be Mel Gibson? Or, alternatively, should we also judge all those thousands of exploitation films that the general public is not aware of? Ban even?
[/quote]
and not to forget that “its a movie”. Nobody ever questioned Oliver Stone’s lack of historical facts in JFK.
[quote=“Kilgore Trout”]
Plunderbunnie went to history class last week.
[/quote]
I have never taken a history class on the subject. But thanks for your smart assed comment. It was very conducive to the current conversation.
[quote]@ plunderbunnie
I see your point, but in my opinion Gibson’s only crime was to be so popular. Apocalypto is a first grade exploitation thriller but because it’s a Mel Gibson film there will be people who take it seriously. But on the other hand, isn’t it a bit unfair to say Gibson isn’t allowed to make these sort of films just because his name happens to be Mel Gibson? Or, alternatively, should we also judge all those thousands of exploitation films that the general public is not aware of? Ban even?[/quote]
I understand what you are saying. To be honest, I didn’t even know about Mel Gibson’s anti-semitic rant or that whole “sugar tits” thing until after I saw this movie over the summer. I found it after I was offended by Apocolypto and was looking into it.
I also agree that because he is so popular, it’s easier to criticize him because, well, we actually know who he is. But honestly, I’m not going to criticize something that I haven’t actually seen. I’m sure lesser known movies may not go over well with me if I were to actually view them. People are obviously only going to get upset about something they actually know is going on. You can say the same thing about war and genocide. The publics non-outrage at these things doesn’t mean they approve of them, it simply means they are not informed.
Anyways, I am not suggesting that these movies should be banned. I am not for censorship, but what I am doing is using my right to free speech to complain about his movies to others, and maybe get others to look at them a different way. I would not want this film banned, but I would like the general public to have more understanding on the subject matter, and one way to do it is to talk about it openly, and thats all I intend to do.
[quote]and not to forget that “its a movie”. Nobody ever questioned Oliver Stone’s lack of historical facts in JFK.[/quote]
It may be “just a movie” but it’s messages are not contained solely to that movie. It influences the viewer, just like the sterotype is projects influenced the Guatemalan genocide. Also, I haven’t seen JFK, but I’m sure some people would find aspect of it historically incorrect or somewhat inaccurate. This tends to happen with any non-fiction film.
It’s just a movie. Movies are to entertain us…nothing else. This is why it pisses me off when people start quoting Michael Moore in a political conversation - as if the dialogue in his movies is as valid as the facts that are in text books.
[quote=“Kilgore Trout”]
It’s just a movie. Movies are to entertain us…nothing else. This is why it pisses me off when people start quoting Michael Moore in a political conversation - as if the dialogue in his movies is as valid as the facts that are in text books.
[/quote]
Once again, do you really believe that movies have no influence on our perceptions of reality? If you show a movie that is based in a historical context, and those watching it know little or nothing about the history, yo have the power to severely skew their perceptions of that history. In any movie it will not be 100% factually correct, but there is a limit. Directors should take more personal responsibility for what they are suggesting to people, or else it is hard to respect them.
As for Micheal Moore, I completely agree.
Pulp Fiction has never influenced my perceptions of reality.
Pulp Fiction isn’t based on the history of an entire race of people that the average person knows basically nothing about.
[quote=“plunderbunnie”]
Pulp Fiction isn’t based on the history of an entire race of people that the average person knows basically nothing about.
[/quote]
neither is that piece of shit waste of film by Mel Gibson. I think that most people (except for the Indians in Guatemala) have already figured out that Mel Gibson is almost as crazy and delusional as Tom Cruise by now. And they don’t take his films seriously or give them any credibility./
[quote=“Kilgore Trout”]
neither is that piece of shit waste of film by Mel Gibson. I think that most people (except for the Indians in Guatemala) have already figured out that Mel Gibson is almost as crazy and delusional as Tom Cruise by now. And they don’t take his films seriously or give them any credibility./
[/quote]
I work at a video store, and from the reactions of viewers I heard, it’s had the opposite effect. I’m not saying the people who held these views were exactly scholars, but it was quite common in the first 2 or 3 weeks the movie came out to hear someone mention how violent, twisted, or disgusting the Mayans were, at least once every shift that I worked. That disturbed me more then the movie itself, and thats why I argue about it quite a lot, because I heard these reactions so much.
To me its like the old cowboy and indian movies that depict Indians as savages. They are really stupid. Dances With Wolves is another story.
I would agree with that, and I would also believe that those portrayals lead some people (particularly young people who haven’t be taught the opposite; my dad often talks about watching those shows as a kid) to have a negative view of Native Americans.
Regardless, anyones going to complain about something they didn’t like in a movie. Some complaints are serious, some aren’t. This just happens to be a more serious complaint I have with this movie. Aside from the offensive lack of accuracy, I thought the movie was very boring. I never understood a lot of action movies. Especially car chases, Death Proof is the only time I was actually interested in a car chase. Usually I avoid a movie all together if I know or suspect there will be long car chase scenes.
[quote=“plunderbunnie”]
Traci Arden (assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Miami, who has studied Classic Maya society for over 20 years while living in modern Maya villages) writes that "Maya intellectuals have demonstrated convincingly that such ideas were manipulated by the Guatemalan army to justify the genocidal civil war of the 1970-1990s."
The Guatemlan Genocoide: "The Guatemalan government, using the Guatemalan Army and its counter-insurgency force (whose members defined themselves as ‘killing machines’), began a systematic campaign of repressions and suppression against the Mayan Indians, whom they claimed were working towards an communist coup…Working methodically across the Mayan region, the army and its paramilitary teams, including ‘civil patrols’ of forcibly conscripted local men, attacked 626 villages. Each community was rounded up, or seized when gathered already for a celebration or a market day. The villagers, if they didn’t escape to become hunted refugees, were then brutally murdered; others were forced to watch, and sometimes to take part. Buildings were vandalised and demolished, and a ‘scorched earth’ policy applied: the killers destroyed crops, slaughtered livestock, fouled water supplies, and violated sacred places and cultural symbols. "
So…there has been sustainable evidences that the reason many of those that committed these acts felt the right too, was the misrepresentation of the Mayan as violent and undeserving of mercy anyway. So really, Mel Gibson’s false representation cannot be dismissed as just entertaining, “leave him alone hes not making a documentary”. In fact, people react to this. Most people know little or nothing about the Maya, and when they see this, they assume its true. I work in a video store, and when they released this it was very popular (ESPECIALLY with teen aged to middle aged men) and I would hear many of them after returning it, or suggesting it to another customer, about how it “opened their eyes” to how violent and cruel the Maya were. It’s insanity.
Also, the last scene. That was the final slap in the face. Jaguar Paw, running from those who are trying to kill him, only to be (basically) rescued by the gallant Spanish, the cross on their ships. The others two stupid to realize who they are, get “what they deserve” the anniliation of their society. Thats the disgusting moral me and many others received. (But again, the archetypal “Noble savage”, somewhat wise but at the same time not overly smart, is safe, so Mel can’t really be that racist, can he? A FEW of them were good people. Ugh!)
[/quote]
Damn, did you copy and paste this from some other place?
[quote=“Scarface”]
Damn, did you copy and paste this from some other place?
[/quote]
No, the references (in quotations) are from articles I have read that I found interesting. I’ll look for a link.
Just for the record, Jaguar Paw wasn’t “rescued” by the Spanish Armada.
When I first saw this movie, I had a feeling that the history didn’t seem right. From the little I knew about Mayan culture, I knew that they weren’t inclined to be as violent as they were being projected to be here. I also thought the dialogue in the hunting scene was a stab at normalizing them that really missed the mark.
I was getting more and more irratated as I watched the movie, but it didn’t begin to truley offend me until they got to the city. It was a disgusting series of scenes obviously aimed at dehumanizing this group of people. Then, the end scene actually made me yell at my television. The Spanish, looking so noble, arriving on the shores. I was very P.O.ed. I looked into it more and educated myself more on the entire culture in general after that, and got more and more irratated the whole time.
Heres one interesting article (One of my quotes is from) <LINK_TEXT text=“Xeni Jardin | about.me … acist.html”>Xeni Jardin | about.me</LINK_TEXT>
[quote=“Scarface”]
Just for the record, Jaguar Paw wasn’t “rescued” by the Spanish Armada.
[/quote]
I didn’t mean they had any intent on rescuing him, but thats the feeling it gives the viewer, at least to me. His life is no longer in immediate peril when they show up. It also leads one to believe that since the two chasing him are more welcoming, they will be the first to be wiped out, their “backwards” society is no more thanks to the Spanish.
The main thing to keep in mind is that “savage” to someone who lives in the 21st century is a different thing that it was in 1492. It’s just like these people who say that Alexander The Great was a homosexual…in a negative way. He very well may have participated in gay sex, but just about everyone else did a the time too. He was acting normal by their standards. When the Indians caught some white man sneaking on their land and brutally executed him in a religious ceremony they were only acting “normally”. The point of my story is that you shouldn’t go fucking with people who find human sacrifice to be normal behavior.