Mel Gibson
Out of context: Reply #33
- Started
- Last post
- 48 Responses
- ********0
that film apocolypto was so incredibly dumb and stupid.
The only thing good about it was, like the Passion, it had some really cool violence. In which case, i didn't mind it. I didn't mind the passion either.
My brother's really dumb, after watching the Passion he said: "fucking hell, i never knew that about the jews killing christ... they're really evil!!"
Here's the deal, there are alot of people who are as dumb as Kona out there. Cinema is our myth making machine, and ultimately it reflects and forms attitudes of many a dumb person, simliar to kona, on their beliefs and impressions on things like race, culture, attitudes towards historical/political perceptions (of course these generally have to be in line with the persons pre-existing prejudices to be inforced. i.e a person needs to already sorta be as dumb as kona to think the mayans were a fucked up pure blood thirsty empire for that message to be reinforced).
when we watch Cecil B DeMille's 1935 film The Crusades, and see a bunch of blacked up white men with pointy beards and turbans playig shifty eyed arabs who butcher innocent white european christian virgin women - we understand that somehow that is reflective of the society of the time. When we watch Ridley Scott's 2005 film, Kingdom of God, and see a more complex portrayal of Arabs, we understand that, though its still not historically accurate, it is still some form of allegory of the modern confrontation with the Middle East ala Western Imperialism.
I baulked at the early scene in Apocalyto in the jungle where all the men from the tribe were sat around a campfire listening to the old man imparting "wisdom". This contrived idyll was part and parcel of the gravitas that Mel tried to bring in his story on the decimation of Mayan culture. I found it patronising, cheesy, and completely unengaging.
Very often its really dumb people, like kona, who think the only message a film is sending is its action sequences. And can't really sense the grander reality the movie is attempting to suck them into. If you sell the reality, you win the audience.
I haven't seen 300, but a very nationalist Greek friend of mine found its portrayal of HIS people's myth shocking. As such he hated the film. I tried to explain that the film is a Myth of a Myth, a highly highly stylised interpretation of a graphic novel that took the myth of the spartan people as its insipration. That what we are actually watching is the thousands year old Spartan retelling of their own heroics, and so its perfectly possible to have a more detached interpretaion of it. But i dunno, i haven't seen 300 so maybe i'd too be annoyed by the narratives and meta-narratives to actually enjoy the film.