What Apocalypto Got Wrong: A Whole Lot

Braveheart and Passion were also historical fictions. Yeah, so Apocalypto was made up. It's a movie, not a documentry!

And even if it was a documentry, doesn't mean it's not just one man's opinion or point of view. We are in the day-in-age in which Borat can win Best Documentry!

Reply

bad review. what are you a lawyer?

Reply

"a harsh and intense action flick with a splash of exotic paint to make it seem deeper." Yup - you called it correctly. Not good history, just a good movie. I hear that doctors and medical professionals hate the tv series 'House' because it's inaccurate as well, but darn good tv.

Reply

Yeah, but there are different levels to just how wrong a movie can get things. There's "partly inaccurate" and the there's "everything is wrong". I'm a history major but I certainly don't mind when things get stuff wrong, make concessions to storytelling, or let the maker's bias change things too much, but this sounds like an extreme case. I haven't seen the movie, AND I don't know much about Mayan culture, but if it's as off as the article says, that's a problem.

Reply

Sorry to add so quickly, but I just read the beginning of the article, and if she's right about the racial stereotypes and message that's mentioned it's DEFINITELY a bit worse than just "getting some things wrong."

*spoilers, I guess*
Can someone who's seen this movie tell me how the conquistadores at the end are portrayed?

Reply

For God's sake guys see the movie and enjoy it. The story is not about the Maya, it's about that young man whose family he has to save. The Maya scene is about 20 minutes, it's only so much you can show before the movie turns into PBS.

To Mel's credit: he dared to finance a film no one ever tried to do before. No known actors, subtitltes. Of course is not perfect yet the movie was #1 in sales.

Most directors would play it safe, but Mel took a chance, and now people want to destroy him for trying.

If this movie gets done in the 70's or 80's it would be filled with white actors and done in english.
I can't wait for Mel's next film.

Reply

They are portrayed ON A BOAT.

Sheesh. I'm as PC and sensitive to racial issues as the next guy, but I really do feel that this film is not as bad as some are saying it is. Guernsey would be right to be pissed off about inaccuracies if this film were being advertised as an historical document--it isn't. The mashing together of time-periods, to me, is obvious, and was done so, in my opinion, to create not just a simplification, but the feeling of a fable. This isn't a film by Robert Altman--"A Day in the Life of Jaguar Paw"--like Braveheart and PotC, it tells the legend of a Mayan man. As such, there are things that are accurate about Mayan culture and there are things that are not.

I'd just like to hear Mel say that this is supposed to be a history book on film before I'll be cool with everyone flipping out about inaccuracies.

SPOILER REGARDING THOSE SPANIARDS: They are the final obstacle of the film--not the Mayan culture's saviors as some have interpreted. In fact, the lead character knows to avoid them, telling his wife that their new beginning with be in the forest (and not with the white man). Seriously, the Spaniards were in like one shot (two at the most). By "final obstacle" I mean that the lead triumphs over a series of life-threatening challenges the story throws at him. Finally, when he sees the white men, he decides he's had enough. And he's right to, as we know from history. The white folks didn't exactly provide salvation for the people of the Americas, did they?

Reply

That article was complete and utter bullshit.

It said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

I think I'm going to write and article and tear that interview apart sentence by sentence.

Seriously, read it again.

Reply

It's a MOVIE. Its job is to entertain and tell an interesting story. Accuracy is irrelevant. Gibson had critics regarding Braveheart too and his response was precise and intelligent: we took liberties to tell an interesting story. That's it and that's all that matters.

Reply

BTW...the last line: Needless to say, history professors will not be placing Apocalypto on their syllabi anytime real soon.

What? Only a f^cktard, lazy, bad history professor puts ANY movie on his syllabus. You know what a movie on the syllabus meant in college? Skip that day! movies are ENTERTAINMENT, not educational tools. Only lazy teachers/profs show movies during class.

Reply

I never went to the theatres for history lessons and I'm not gonna start now.

Reply

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thinks that people are using an impossible standard to criticize this film.

When you see what Troy did to the Iliad and what Gladiator did to Roman History (even the swords and masks were wrong) why is Gibson being criticized like this? Oh, wait! He was drunk and blamed all the wars in the world on the Jews. That explains it all the vituperative criticism.

Reply

For those interested in further info on Mayan cities .. Beyond "Apocalypto" - What Maya Empire Looked Like .. from National Geographic

Reply

Henry Ford correctly wisecracked" History is Bunk"..it is only what got written down at the time. All the archaeology and research can't go much beyond that.Mel has to condense a story and give an impression of realism in two hours, for God's sake. How else is he supposed to do it? Why don't some of these critics try it themselves sometimes and see what they come up with? And they should use their own money, of course!!

Reply

I wont repeat the sentiment here, suffice to say I agree, with the majority on this one...

I know its en vogue now to bash Mel, because he is possibly a racist, but you have to do better than that.
I suppose next you're going to complain because The Ten Commandments didn't get daily Egyptian or Jewish life right.

You mean to tell me Egyptians didn't speak perfectly fluent English with a touch of Brittish accent?

Reply

It's funny how Mad Max's support group compares Apocolypto to "The Ten Commandments" and "Passion of the Christ." The difference is the Mayan culture actually existed and therefore has the potential to be portrayed inaccurately. The 10 Commandments and PotC (not Pirates of the Caribbean) are based on pure fictional characters and make-believe happenings, therefore can't really be done inaccurately other than not being faithful to the source fiction book.

Also, I recently took a Mesoamerican Art History class and the professor stated she would have made Apocolypto required viewing for the course prior to it's release. After she learned it was almost completely fantasy, she did not endorse it.

I have taken college courses that are nothing but watching movies, and then critically analyzing the content. And for those that think movies are only for entertainment and not educational tools, maybe you haven't heard of the propaganda films of the past(not just from the bad guys, we made them too). Only a lazy fucktard wouldn't know that.

Reply

Seighton, considering I attended a top university I'd say I can safely comment that yeah, only a lazy f^cktard prof will show a movie. You can toss out a snippet to display the typical tools of propaganda - hell watch a Spielberg movie and you'll be exposed to the same kind of crass audience manipulation.

A movie like Braveheart or Schindler's List or Apocolypto exist ONLY to line the pockets of filmmakers (possibly earn golden boys which will make more money for the filmmakers). There's no reason to sit through all of Birth of a Nation to get the gist. The profs that force entire films are wasting the time of the students.

Apocolypto, Schindlers, Braveheart, Gladiator are all the same thing: make believe. They're fake. They reveal nothing about a time or place. They were made on sound stages and used cameras, make up and all manner of subterfuge. cinema = lies at 24 fps.

Reply

First, let me state that I agree with the majority on this one. I was a history teacher in Brooklyn, NY for 5 years (before I got smart and went into the mortgage business) and have a masters degree in history. My concentration was on western Europe, not the Americas, but I can tell you that none of what is right or wrong about Apocalypto's timeline or historical accuracy matters with regard to history education. In fact, using a film that gets more information wrong than right can be a useful tool in the classroom because it proves to the students that they shouldn't believe what they see on the big screen (or the small one for that matter) and should seek the truth themselves. Getting your Mayan Cultural history from Mel Gibson is like basing your assessment of the world's current political picture upon the information provided by Barbra Streisand's website, or the second verse of a flag-waving country/western song. If you do that, you're acting like an imbecile.

That said, I must also comment on Seighton's inane statement:

"The difference is the Mayan culture actually existed and therefore has the potential to be portrayed inaccurately. The 10 Commandments and PotC (not Pirates of the Caribbean) are based on pure fictional characters and make-believe happenings, therefore can't really be done inaccurately other than not being faithful to the source fiction book."

Look, you may not believe in a Judeo-Christian religon, or even believe in God. That's cool. No one really cares. But your comment is just dumb. Whether you think so or not, Jesus was an actual person who lived in the area known as Judea under the rule of the Roman Empire. Moses was an actual person who lived in Egypt in the time of the pharoahs. Burning bushes, water to wine, healing lepers, parting oceans...fine. Maybe all that is false. All that really doesn't matter when we're discussing a Mel Gibson movie about Mayans. But the Roman Empire did exist. Ancient Egypt did exist. Those people did exist. The cultures they lived in did exist. Just because you've taken a few college classes and looked at some mesoamerican art, doesn't mean that you get to erase important figures from the accurate and factual historical record.

And even though i was raised Catholic, I haven't seen the insode of a church except for a wedding or a funeral in close to 20 years. I curse, and lie, I've been divorced and re-married outside the church, and I'm all for a woman's right to choose, I think priests should either be able to get married or shut up about advising people on marriage, and I rarely if ever turn the other cheek. That all makes me a pretty bad Catholic, and I don't really give a rat's ass. It also means I'm pretty much a regular guy who happens to make the sign of the cross before he prays. No biggie. But hyper-confident, arrogant, fucktards who believe that their viewpoint (often based on their uncanny ability to wield a pencil and get into a community college by signing their name on the Pell Grant papers) is important to the masses kind of bug me. There's absolutely no reason on this forum to refer to the holy text of a couple of billion people as a "source fiction book." That's just your silly little bias showing through. And it's especially annoying when the book you're refering to is not a work of fiction, and has been proven so by better folks than you, my undergraduate friend. Of course the Bible contains fictional stuff, as well as biased and overtly supernatural descriptions, depictions and interpretations of events of the time. But much of the book is rooted in historical fact and is often cited as such by scholars around the world and of many faiths.

So, to sum up, just because you saw a movie that didn't agree with your mesoamerican art history 101 instructor's views, doesn't mean you get to insult a third of the world's population. Fucktard.

Have a nice day.

Reply

First, let me state that I agree with the majority on this one. I was a history teacher in Brooklyn, NY for 5 years (before I got smart and went into the mortgage business) and have a masters degree in history. My concentration was on western Europe, not the Americas, but I can tell you that none of what is right or wrong about Apocalypto's timeline or historical accuracy matters with regard to history education. In fact, using a film that gets more information wrong than right can be a useful tool in the classroom because it proves to the students that they shouldn't believe what they see on the big screen (or the small one for that matter) and should seek the truth themselves. Getting your Mayan Cultural history from Mel Gibson is like basing your assessment of the world's current political picture upon the information provided by Barbra Streisand's website, or the second verse of a flag-waving country/western song. If you do that, you're acting like an imbecile.

That said, I must also comment on Seighton's inane statement:

"The difference is the Mayan culture actually existed and therefore has the potential to be portrayed inaccurately. The 10 Commandments and PotC (not Pirates of the Caribbean) are based on pure fictional characters and make-believe happenings, therefore can't really be done inaccurately other than not being faithful to the source fiction book."

Look, you may not believe in a Judeo-Christian religon, or even believe in God. That's cool. No one really cares. But your comment is just dumb. Whether you think so or not, Jesus was an actual person who lived in the area known as Judea under the rule of the Roman Empire. Moses was an actual person who lived in Egypt in the time of the pharoahs. Burning bushes, water to wine, healing lepers, parting oceans...fine. Maybe all that is false. All that really doesn't matter when we're discussing a Mel Gibson movie about Mayans. But the Roman Empire did exist. Ancient Egypt did exist. Those people did exist. The cultures they lived in did exist. Just because you've taken a few college classes and looked at some mesoamerican art, doesn't mean that you get to erase important figures from the accurate and factual historical record.

And even though i was raised Catholic, I haven't seen the insode of a church except for a wedding or a funeral in close to 20 years. I curse, and lie, I've been divorced and re-married outside the church, and I'm all for a woman's right to choose, I think priests should either be able to get married or shut up about advising people on marriage, and I rarely if ever turn the other cheek. That all makes me a pretty bad Catholic, and I don't really give a rat's ass. It also means I'm pretty much a regular guy who happens to make the sign of the cross before he prays. No biggie. But hyper-confident, arrogant, fucktards who believe that their viewpoint (often based on their uncanny ability to wield a pencil and get into a community college by signing their name on the Pell Grant papers) is important to the masses kind of bug me. There's absolutely no reason on this forum to refer to the holy text of a couple of billion people as a "source fiction book." That's just your silly little bias showing through. And it's especially annoying when the book you're refering to is not a work of fiction, and has been proven so by better folks than you, my undergraduate friend. Of course the Bible contains fictional stuff, as well as biased and overtly supernatural descriptions, depictions and interpretations of events of the time. But much of the book is rooted in historical fact and is often cited as such by scholars around the world and of many faiths.

So, to sum up, just because you saw a movie that didn't agree with your mesoamerican art history 101 instructor's views, doesn't mean you get to insult a third of the world's population. Fucktard.

Have a nice day.

Reply

"After she learned it was almost completely fantasy, she did not endorse it."

Did she really think it was a historical documentary? What about any of Mel Gibson's previous works gave her any indication that Apocalypto would be true to history? If anything, Mel's "agenda", as it is put (and no, I'm not a supporter, I have no affiliation with any religion), should have been a tip-off that this was a movie to avoid using in any sort of educational capacity.

And you might want to go back to school if you think propaganda films are 'educational', they aren't, there is no education there. At most they are informational, disinformational if you will, with the twisting of truth to suit a certain end.

Reply