Review of Apocalypto :: The American Critic

Review of Apocalypto

by Sarah88
December 4th, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Filed under: Arts & Entertainment

The end of the year 2006 brought an array of outstanding movies, but one movie in particular had me leaving the movie theatre in awe. With its thrilling and suspenseful storyline, beautiful cinematography, and perfectly casted characters, Apocalypto was undoubtedly one of the best movies I have ever seen. Although Apocalypto won six awards and was nominated for another fifteen awards (including three Oscars and a Golden Globe), the movie was not as popular among the general public. Many people did not want to see the movie because Mel Gibson, the director and co-writer, had recently received bad press due to his anti-Semitic comments, and they refused to support him by seeing his movie. The movie also received criticism because the film contained a great deal of violence. In addition, the historical accuracy of the movie has also been debated. Despite the censure Apocolypto received, I believe society did not give the film the credit it deserves.
Set in fifteenth century Mesoamerica and during the decline of the ancient Mayan civilization, Apocalypto centers around a young Man named Jaguar Paw. One morning, Mayan warriors attack his peaceful village in search of slaves and sacrifices to their Mayan gods. After hiding his pregnant wife and young son, Jaguar Paw is captured along with most of the villagers and taken to a Mayan city. A solar eclipse saves him from his destiny of being sacrificed, and his immense love for his family drives him to escape. However, in order to escape, Jaguar Paw has to kill the son of the high-ranking warrior. This spurs the warriors to come after him with a vengeance. Jaguar Paw must fight for his survival and for his family.
There was some protest against Mel Gibson and his new movie because Gibson has been accused of being an anti-Semite. In 2004, the release of his The Passion of the Christ prompted the accusations, many claiming it has anti-Semitic imagery and overtones. The allegations were refueled during the year of Apocalypto’s release due to the anti-Semitic remarks he made during his arrest for a DUI charge earlier that year, claiming that “Jews are responsible for all the wars in this world.” He later apologized for his remark, specifically to the Jewish community, and denied being an anti-Semite. However, his apologies did little damage control for his character or for his upcoming movie. Many people boycotted the film, refusing to support Mel Gibson after the incident. Regardless of his comment and abrasive temperament, he is undeniably a talented director, and I believe that credit should be given where credit due. His movie should not be judged based on the judgments made on him, but rather its content.
Apocalypto is a very violent movie, and it received a lot of criticism for this. The violence begins with the warriors attacking the village. This scene may one of the hardest to watch, as the once peaceful village is torn apart, and people scream and fight for their lives. The scene ends with Jaguar Paw witnessing a warrior slit his father’s neck. After being tied up and led to the city, Jaguar Paw sees someone’s heart being ripped out and head being chopped off and rolled to the bottom of a ziggurat as a sacrifice to the Mayan gods. The rest of the film is full of gruesome violence as well. Many said that the violence overpowered the plot of the film, ruining any potential it may have had to be a good movie. While I agree that this movie is not appropriate for children or the faint-at-heart, I do not believe the violence was excessive to the point of ruining the movie. Mel Gibson is known for his use of violence in his movies, but he does not use it in an inappropriate manner, such as in the new genre of torture horror. In my opinion, it seems that Gibson puts an emphasis on violence because it is a truth of life. I believe that the plot and cinematography overshadows the violence, making all the grisly moments worth it.
Several anthropologists, historians, and present day Mayans condemned the movie for being historically inaccurate. Many were especially outraged at the portrayal of the ancient Mayans as being bloodthirsty savages performing human sacrifice on a massive scale. They argue that this was more characteristic of the ancient Aztecs, not the Mayans. For this, many called Gibson a “white supremacist,” and his previous reputation did not help in his defense. However, there are anthropologists and professors who disagree with this view. Several say that Gibson’s portrayal is closer to the truth than what “appears in Mexican textbooks,” and that the Mayans were more like the Aztecs than previously believed. Though there is no proof that Mayans sacrificed masses of people, the manner in which they are sacrificed in the movie is quite accurate. Historians also argue that the Mayan city inaccurately combines details from completely separate Mesoamerican cultures, such as the architecture of the temples and the murals. Co-writer and co-producer Farhad Safinia responded to the criticisms that this was done for aesthetic reasons, not out of ignorance. Many critics have also disputed the arrival of the Spanish Expedition at the end of the movie, saying that the Spanish did not come until three-hundred years after the last Mayan city was deserted. Conversely, most historians disagree and say the Mayans still inhabited the large cities at the time the Spanish Expedition. In addition, several small cities thrived until 1697, many years after the Spanish arrived. When using a historical setting to depict a fictional work, disputes are unavoidable; however, we should not let this nit picking prevent us from appreciating the work. Apocalypto is set in a civilization that we do not know a great deal about, so I would say that Gibson did a good job with accuracy, and he is entitled to some poetic license.
With all the criticisms going around, people are overlooking the beautiful and amazing aspects of Apocalypto. Despite that many are turned off by a movie completely in subtitles, the movie would have been a complete failure without the use of the Yucatec Mayan language. It made the movie feel authentic and real, helping the viewer immerse him or herself in the film. The casting also helped add to the authenticity of the movie. There are no celebrities in the cast, which, I believe, made the characters seem so much more real. Also, the cinematography, done by Dean Semler, is brilliantly done. The way the movie was shot adds intensity, beauty, and emotion to the movie. There is so much to be praised about Apocalpto, but too many critics are focused on the negatives; perhaps it is an attack on Gibson for his infamous reputation.
Apocalypto was one of the top movies of 2006, and it remains to be one of my favorites. Critics and the public criticized the movie and director Mel Gibson, hardly giving the film a fair chance. Gibson may have a rude demeanor, but it is not a good reason why a person cannot enjoy one of his films. In addition, I do not believe the violence overpowers or ruins the movie, as many critics have suggested, but rather it is a somewhat necessary element to the plot. Also, to nit-pick about the historical accuracy in a fictional film is absurd when the details of the civilization are not even clear to historians. If people could look past these criticisms, they could see how powerful and real this movie is.