Yesterday afternoon I went to see Mel Gibson's new movie Apocalypto. After his drunken anti-semitic rant, I really didn't want to support him with my movie-going dollars, but the previews were intriguing enough that I decided maybe it was worth making the moral sacrifice.

Plus - having been interested in Mayan and Aztec culture since childhood and having spent considerable time reading about, studying and visiting their temples, ruins and museums in the various areas of Mexico and Guatemala, I was hoping the movie would visually bring aspects of a culture to life I was only able to imagine in my own mind's eye up to now.

Thank the gods I only paid for the matinee admission.

[Spoiler warning - read on at your own risk]

The movie starts out innocently enough - with a tapir hunt in the dense forest of what one has to presume is somewhere in the Mayan Yucatan. The victorious group of hunters return to their village, and scenes of daily life (and even some comedy) ensue, paired with an intro to the main characters - a young man named Jaguar Paw, his wife and young son.

Soon however, the film descends into the depths of the only thing Gibson seems to be capable of pointing his camera at these days: an adrenaline-fueled gorefest. Without going into details or recounting every appallably brutal scene, let's just say that this movie must have used ten times the movie blood of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and I found myself averting my eyes more than once.

Jaguar Paw and his fellow villagers are kidnapped by hostile and sadistic Aztecs (although he manages to hide his wife and child in a deep well) and dragged on a long perilous walk through the forest to a human sacrifice ceremony, where he narrowly and serendiptiously escapes dying a "flowery death". After killing his captors son and running off into the forest, he is being hunted by the Aztecs, which he first manages to outrun, then kill off one by one. Meanwhile, his pregnant wife endures a vicious monkey and a failed escape attempt, eventually gives birth, and finally almost drowns in the well during a torrential downpour. I'll refrain from revealing the finale here, but let's just say that for once, in a reversal of roles, the Conquistadores actually save someone's life instead of ending it...

Two things that really disturbed me about this movie however: One, the apparent and widespread lack of historical, spacial and natural accuracy.

While Aztecs and Mayans did indeed live in the same parallel age, geographically, they were too far apart to jive with the movie's roughly 4 day timeline. No one could have walked or run from the Mayan jungle to an Aztec city and back within that short period of time. Especially since most of the Aztec blood sacrifices happened in Tenochtitlan (today's Mexico City), a large city in the heart of Mexico and surrounded by a then-gigantic lake (which is nowhere to be seen in the movie - I guess it would have been too pretty). Plus, the arrival of the Conquistadores happened in the area of today's Veracruz on the central coast of the Golf of Mexico - nowhere near the Mayan jungle.

The frog Jaguar Paw grabs and uses to poison some darts with looks like a crudely yellow-painted toad - despite the fact that every child these days knows that those specific frogs are tiny and fragile. The black panther he is confronted with is a very obviously large and fat zoo animal, which would have been more at home in South-East Asia or Africa than Central America - a proper jaguar would have been a much more likely encounter. And a sacred Ceiba tree that is shown as getting chopped down just outside of the Aztec city is also not native to Central Mexico, but again rather to deep Mayan jungle.

The list of faux-pas goes on and on like that: the Aztec king wearing elaborate jade jewelry (more fitting for a Mayan king), the fact that the Aztecs spoke the same language as the Mayans (unlikely) ... and so on and so forth.

Oh, and speaking of language: while I really enjoyed hearing the ancient Mayan dialect being spoken throughout the movie (as I had heard it in the highlands of Guatemala, among Mayan villagers), the dialogue written for the movie was horrible. There was actually a spoken line that was translated as: "He's fucked." Pretty sure no 16th-century Meso-american had that word in his vocabulary ...

Two - all these missteps pale in comparison to the twisted underlying message of the movie: that civilizations like the Aztec and Maya, who were embracing what Gibson no doubt sees as the climax of heathendom, are automatically slated for doom and destruction. Or maybe salvation by the Christian Conquistadores?

All throughout the movie I could not shake the feeling that Gibson had not made this film to show what depravity and cruelty are necessary to bring a culture to its knees (modern parallels anyone?) - but instead to advance his own Christian agenda by pointing out the godlessness of another civilization, and explicity and brutally detailing their demise. Which is of course perfectly in line with the historical, spacial and natural liberties he took in order to make it all fit in with his message...

So if you really want to learn about, comprehend and appreciate Aztec and Mayan culture - instead of throwing $6.50 at a man like Gibson - go out and buy the book Aztec, one of the most magnificent historical novels ever written. Oh, yeah - and this one is meticiously researched ...

Note: One could argue that the temple city, sacrifical ceremonies, language etc. I'm attributing to the Aztec could have been Mayan instead (as a few reviews online do) - except the Mayan empire started to decline around 900 A.D. and the only conclusive appearance of a timeline (the Spanish ships) puts the movie's timeline squarely into the 16th century, when the Aztec thrived. Plus, while the Mayan engages in human sacrifices, they were far less blood-thirsty than the Aztec and that puts the movie squarely into Aztec territory...

They were all Aztecs, no Mayans. The movie succesfully showed how large scale organization breeds corruption, even within the same peoples, and that as the world changes, there is less and less room for innocence. The simple life gives way to larger and more corrupt powers and will yet again with the Spaniards.
And Mel may be a putz, but you have to seperate the art from the artist, as the best artist are always a__holes.
I'm sure there were historical and geographic discrepencies throughout the film, because it was not intended to represent history (it was never portrayed this way as far as I know). Don't expect Hollywood to educate you, even when they claim truth it is seldom the case.
Two thumbs up on this one. Best movie of the year!

The film was great! Notice the 8 mm almost crystal clear close-ups of the running and chase seens blended with the normal "movie" camera shots. You will see it gives the impression as if it is a recorded event blended with a cinematic viewing. As far as violence goes...Historically these two groups never really met up that much...But in that era you better believe things got bloody more than just a little bit.

The film was great! Notice the 8 mm almost crystal clear close-ups of the running and chase scenes blended with the normal "movie" camera shots. You will see it gives the impression as if it is a recorded event blended with a cinematic viewing. As far as violence goes...Historically these two groups never really met up that much...But in that era you better believe things got bloody more than just a little bit.

great film! way to go mel....but my gosh....do you love blood and guts or what???? i guess it goes with the subject matter. thanks for the treat!

9.5 out of 10! NICE

Who really cares what Mel may have said as regards Jews, or anyone else for that matter? Apocalypto is a cinematic masterpiece. It is what it was intended to be: entertainment. Man, if you're harping on the complexion of a dart toad, you've got serious issues.

If you're thinking of seeing the film (now on DVD for some time), don't let anyone's absurd comments about Mel stop you. It's a fun time...