Quote of the day

The language of a captive community acquires certain durable habits; whole zones of reality cease to exist simply because they have no name

Syndicate content

Columns

Paul Rogers

Global security


Li Datong

China from the inside


Fred Halliday

Global politics


Mary Kaldor

Human security


Daniele Archibugi

Cosmopolitan democracy

Email & RSS

Sign up to oD's editorial summaries email:


Enter your Email


Powered by FeedBlitz


Follow oD on Twitter:


Join our Facebook group:
Add oD to your Netvibes: Add to Netvibes

Demotix witness*upload*share

Recent comments

Navigation


View 11 comments

Jungle dumb: Mel Gibson's Apocalypto

Kanishk Tharoor, 18 - 12 - 2006
Mel Gibson's Mayan blockbuster is an imperialist Christian dream but otherwise an historical and cultural nightmare, says Kanishk Tharoor.


In a rare pause in Mel Gibson's breakneck Apocalypto, the film's protagonist decides to give a speech. Jaguar Paw - a name over-literalised in later action - puffs out his chest and turns to face his pursuers. Having just leaped over a roaring waterfall, he is allowed more than a touch of hubris. "My name's Jaguar Paw, I'm a hunter and this is my forest," he shouts gesturing to the dark expanses about him. "My father hunted here and so will my sons."

His awed pursuers gape at the man who until recently had been their captive. For a moment, they - and the audience - can glimpse a hero as large as those in epics far worthier of the genre than Mad Mel's blockbusters. One recalls Odysseus, having just eluded Polyphemos the Cyclops, brazenly turn and identify himself: I'm Odysseus, I sack cities, my dad Laertes was pretty good at that himself, but now lives at home in Ithaka, where I'm going.

The inevitable follows all such heroic pronouncements. Poseidon curses Odysseus to storm-tossed years of wandering. Jaguar Paw's pursuers themselves jump the waterfall and chase him bloodily back to his home. Yet, at the end of the day, blunt heroic hubris perseveres; a wizened, but still capable Odysseus returns to Ithaka, while Jaguar Paw turns the tables on his foes and is safely - if predictably - reunited with his family.

But quoting Homer only gets Gibson so far down the road of epic artifice. The Mayan world of the film is at once lush and entirely two-dimensional. Despite its lunges towards grandeur and allegory, Apocalypto remains stuck in the mud of aged clichés. The film is further evidence of the sinister vacuity of Gibson's craft. His imagination is not simply moronic. A sliver of substance lies beneath the slick gloss of style, but it is more poisonous than insipid, more disingenuous than air-headed.

hero montage
I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille – or is it Mr. Spielberg, or maybe even Mr. P Jackson? Mel Gibson’s Mayan action-hero-quest is all Hollywood

Savagery, salvation and stereotypes

At the heart of Gibson's darkness is the eternal forest invoked by Jaguar Paw. The film opens in this jungle. In its green glow, Jaguar Paw and his friends live happily. They play jokes on each other, hunt boars, exchange amorous glances with their women and sit around camp fires listening to an ancient storyteller rumble his folktales.

It's an uncomfortably serene scene. None of the villagers harbour larger ambitions; they are content, simplistic, and if left to their own devices, one feels they would go on as they are till the end of time.

This is how Gibson conjures the first of two pedigreed, but insidious stereotypes: the romantic savage - proud, primitive, for most intents and purposes manly, and above all timeless and unchanging.

Kanishk Tharoor is the managing editor of Madrid11.net

Also by Kanishk Tharoor on openDemocracy:

A review of "My Name is Red" by Orhan Pamuk

Such idyll, however, can never last long in a Gibson film where the status quo is gore and brutality, not sylvan conviviality. Sure enough, paradise is broken by a pack of nasty raiders, who, after a sufficient spate of bloodletting, cart Jaguar Paw and his once merry men off to the city.

The city: monumental, industrious, rapacious. Apocalypto pits the jungle against this looming urban sprawl. Where the jungle is private and internal, the city is all externality, its squares packed with the heaving masses, its ziggurats reaching to the sky. Where the jungle espouses "live and let live", the city thirsts for blood and the sacrifice of the weak. And while the jungle seems to exist outside the march of history, the city is yoked to time's unforgiving trajectories.

There is nothing redeemable in this nameless city. Its carnal decadence is not only its greatest sin, but its entire being. Its insistence on gaudy ritual in the face of drought and plague recalls biblical Egypt. Like Moses, Jaguar Paw manages to escape this urban civilisation for the sanctity of the wild (though he endures a harrowing chase that takes up the bulk of the film). Yet, the city itself is not so lucky: rotten through and through, it has consigned itself to the rubbish bin of time.

Spot the difference?

The arrival of the conquistadores and Christian missionaries at the film's climax completes this vision of Mayan demise. Though Gibson has spoken of Apocalypto as an allegory for the Iraq war, this is an entirely unreasonable and unlikely proposition.

His tableau owes more to the 18th and 19th centuries than the era of 24-hour news. Gibson applies a stereotype once reserved for plump, bejewelled sultans - the notion of "Oriental decadence and decline" that paved the way for European imperialism - to the totally undeserving Maya.

Instead of empire, however, it is Christianity that Gibson welcomes with open arms into the world of the Maya. The film ends as Jaguar Paw and his rescued family move onto a self-described "new beginning", eventually nurtured, one imagines, by the humane balm of Christ.

Gibson's supposedly anti-imperial critique of American involvement in the middle east is nothing of the sort, but a thoroughly imperial vision of Christianity. Faith will protect the romantic savage and faith will purge the sickness of the Mayan polity. Victorian Anglicists could not have written a better script.

Mayan myth-making

And yet Gibson is still getting away with it. Criticism of Apocalypto has focused on its violence - which is unrelenting - and its historically flawed representation of the Maya. While the film is gory, it remains quite easy on the eye - a testament to Gibson's genuine prowess with the camera. Gibson himself has suggested that the world is a violent place and ought to be dealt with as such. In fairness to his critics, however, there is a boyish relish in the bloodiness of the film that goes well beyond the demands of verisimilitude.

Historical errors, as one would expect in any Hollywood film, are legion: Mayan cities had been abandoned for over five hundred years before the Spanish arrived in Mesoamerica; the Maya possessed tremendous astronomical knowledge and would not have been spooked by an eclipse (that scene, in fact, comes straight off the pages of Tintin); large-scale human sacrifice was conducted by the Mexica, not the Maya who sacrificed mostly members of the elite and would not have scoured the forests for lowly victims like Jaguar Paw.

mel in the forest

Anthropologists and specialists of central America have noted that the Maya - a living, not extinct people - continue to face discrimination in Guatemala and Mexico on the grounds of their supposed "barbarity". Gibson's film doesn't help matters with its brutal portrayal of Maya traditions and history.

More tragic than this disservice to the living Maya, however, is the praise Apocalypto has won from Native Americans themselves. The head of the Chickasaw nation in the United States hailed Gibson for his use of an entirely Native American cast, with actors plucked from Canada, the US and Mexico. Such indigenous casting helped "make the film more realistic" and served "as an inspiration to Native American actors who aspire to perform relevant roles in the film industry."

With such statements in mind, one almost longs for the days of grainy westerns, where "Injuns" were whooping cannon fodder for intrepid Yankees, and aspired to be little more than cannon fodder. Such a vocation is less reprehensible, perhaps, than having one's "authenticity" turned into a vehicle for foaming Christian reverie. Through Gibson's vivid realism, little (except willing disbelief) protects the natives from the impression that "this is how they actually were".

The seeming authenticity allows Gibson to conjure the romantic world of the jungle and the corrupt world of the city with ease. In this false binary lay the demise of most colonised societies. With its Christian soft power, European empire expunged the rotten political class while shepherding the noble but simplistic natives towards "modernity".

It is depressing - hardly ironic - that when marginalised peoples finally make it to the big screen, it is to violate the complexity of their culture, to reinforce the historical narrative of their current marginalisation, and then, only afterwards, to do violence upon their bodies for our entertainment.


Rumble in the jungle: Jaguar Paw asserts himself

Average rating
(11 votes)

Please support openDemocracy's "Needed: more democracy!" campaign.

We need more of our readers to support the work of helping spread democratic understanding and influence.

If you read openDemocracy and value it please DONATE:

Donate from the UK with Gift Aid

Donate from any other country

Donate via PayPal

 
This article is published by Kanishk Tharoor, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.
NewsCredit This article adheres to the openDemocracy.net principles.

Comments


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

DKML (not verified) said:



Sun, 2009-02-08 21:28

Regardless of the symbolism of the film, which incidentially I thought was quite good, I don't get how any one in their right mind can infer anything about European imperialism in this film since the version I saw did not have any interaction with Europeans in it other than the Spanish rowing their boat towards the natives. Also, I don't think the portrayal of the Maya was some how demeaning. Yes, artistic license was taken with the facts but by and large Gibson portrayed them as real people with real dilemmas. I am very educated liberal and frankly I think that this sentimental emmotionally motivated analysis has no or little place in the public dialouge. If Kanishk Tharoor wants to bitch about real problems there are plenty to go around.

stefanie said:



Tue, 2008-02-05 03:38

i agree with krishnamc in that obsession with blood, power, money or anything really will ultimately result in an individual as well as society's demise. likewise, parting from what is natural is.. well.. un-natural and will lead to the same. the book collapse covers the topic well.

the movie is certainly open to interpretation and i fear for the most part misinterpretation. seems that the typical interpretations from the movie are amongst other things racist and delusional, due most likely to viewers western superiority and grandose complex and subconcious assumptions. i find the idea that the spanish at the end of the movie turned up to 'save' the mayans from themselves quite baffling.

i have no idea what mel was aiming for, but my interpretation painted an obvious picture. in a nutshell - the 'bad' city mayans had detahced themselves from the world around them and consequently destroyed it and themselves in the process. the spanish at the end were even more detached from the environment (so much so that they had no idea and thought they would be helping). to me, they threatened to be an even bigger and more formiddable enemy. not only would they conquer and destroy the land (same as the 'bad' mayans), but also would destroy the culture, and ofcourse do it with a smile and a feel good attitude.

not surprising, the main character and his family chose not to embrace the spanish arrivals but instead to retreat into the jungle by themselves. ofcourse in the real world, there is no escape.

on a side note, i don't do well with gore, but given the story, i felt it was appropriate and prefferable to hollywood fight scenes which fail to portray the cruelty and pain of such occurences in reality, thus downgrading it and failing to represent how bad violence is.

anyway that's my 2 cents for today. any comments?

beenakumar2005 said:



Tue, 2007-01-16 09:37
Looks to me like heimbinder decided to hate Mr. Tharoor because most of his criticisms are valid. His frustration is also evident by the way he has misspelled the author's name in three places in his comment. Also, exotic foreigners, as Iljay calls them, don't go around making movies to push their faith or glorify their religion on the unsuspecting masses.

krishnamc said:



Tue, 2007-01-16 00:08
I feel the author this essay and many of the people in this forum may have missed is that, the film may not have been at all about historical accuracy,religion but a recreation of our present day problems.

The first quote, listed at the beginning of this film hit this point well " a civilisation is only conquered after it has destroyed itself from within"

The hero of the film saves himself and his family not using any mythical powers but by using his comonsense, judgement and awareness in all cases. Gibson portray's the civilisation of the city as morally bankrupt. Our global culture has become morally bankrupt. The city deweller for their obsession with blood, our modern day society with it's obsession with status and wealth.

The villagers are anihilated, because of their fear of being diseased by human suffering. Rather than find the cause of those already pillaged and take action to evade it they ignore it at their peril. This is what is coming with green house emitions where we are in a "state of denial."

If anything Gibson film values are from those of eastern philosophy and rationalism. Although their is obvious superficial retelling of Moses story above this. The prophecies in the film are protrayed as half-developed awareness rather than ideas that we are controlled by and empowered God. The hero uses intelligence not magic of outwit his opponents.

So

farcity101 said:



Wed, 2006-12-27 03:18
Before I even start, let me say I wish Mel Gibson had made a movie about the Spanish Conquest of the Aztecs--what an epic that could be!

Now, regardless of the historical merits of the movie, it did show fairly accurate costumes. It actually seemed toned down on the tatooing and teeth filing into points.

Head hunting existed throughout Mexico, Central America, and Peru, so the cutting off of the heads has a historical basis. Maya priests also wore human head suspended from necklaces, as is seen on sculptures (also a human head is shown on the steps of a temple on the murals at Bonampak.

The Maya had a fascinating civilization, but it was also a barbaric civilization. People with high levels of mathematics and writing are not necessarily "civilized," a word that has a friendly connotation to most people.

It is clear from both real history and the movie that Catholism was a better religion for the Indians that what they had in Mexico and Yucata. It is a shame that the Maya books were burned, but this must be seen by the light of the fact that Catholic priests were finding babies on their altars with their hearts cut out.

It also needs to be understood that even if the Europeans had come in peace to the New World, the Indians would have been decimated by European diseases, such as measels and smallpox. Disease killed more Indians by far than the white man ever killed. That is NOT to justify the slaughter of the Indians, but it does add a different perspective to the picture.

I'll end with with what Bernal Diaz del Castillo said when Cortes and some other Spaniards climbed up to the top of the great Aztec temple:

In this place they had a drum of most enormous size, the head of which was made of the skins of large serpents: this instrument when struck resounded with a noise that could be heard to the distance of two leagues, and so doleful that it deserved to be named the music of the infernal regions; and with their horrible sounding horns and trumpets, their great knives for sacrifice, their human victims, and their blood besprinkled altars, I devoted them, and all their wickedness to God�s vengeance, and thought that the time would never arrive, that I should escape from this scene of human butchery, horrible smells, and more detestable sights.

The same was true of the Maya temples. Remember what happened when a boatload of 17 Spanish sailors washed up on the coast of Yucatan some five years before the Conquest. All but two were sacrificed, and the two who lived did so by becoming Maya (one married a Maya Lord's daughter. Years later when Cortes landed and sent people to rescue the men, one man wouldn't go because he was ashamed. His body was covered with tatoos and piecings. In other words, he survived by becoming a modern-American high school student.

Just a few quick thought from having just watched the movie. I'm glad I saw it. I would rate it 3.5 out of 5 stars.

I wish the spear in the side scene wasn't there--I mean, hint, hint, this guy is supposed to be some kind of Jesus--he even gets baptised in a leap off the waterfall. But then he falls into a black mud pool of quick sand. Now what was that supposed to mean?

I thought he had been saved.

ILJAY said:



Wed, 2006-12-20 20:42
A typical liberal knee-jerk review. If we switched Mayans and Christians in the film, it would go on the must see list of the New York Times and The Guardian. To put it simply: stereotyping Christians is fashionable but stereotyping exotic foreigners is politically incorrect.

matthew.basham said:



Wed, 2006-12-20 17:05
I agree entirely. Most appalling was the scene where Gibson injected the Lord's prayer. It seems Gibson can't do anything without preaching catholic/christian dogma. I also agree about the age-old noble savage stereotypes portrayed in the film. It is amazing, some 500 years after Columbus's arrival, and we still have good indian/bad indian stereotypes permeating our society.

ddj said:



Tue, 2006-12-19 22:45
I agree that the "Christian imperialism vs Oriental decadence" interpretation is rather forced. If nothing else, variations on similar themes suggest themselves just as readily. Roman (& American?) Empire, to name an obvious one.

m_heimbinder said:



Tue, 2006-12-19 16:06
I believe that Mr. Karoor decided to hate Mr. Gibsons film before he ever stepped foot in the theater.

Some of his criticisms are valid, but his interpretation of the "arrival of the conquistadores and Christian missionaries" is entirely off. Briefly, the European ships are most certainly not the "climax" of the film but the conclusion and they are introduced with an ominous tone of foreboding, not, as Karor claims, as the Christain saviors of the Maya. The girl infected with small pox and Jaguar Paw's retreat into the jungle with his family both attest to this.

Karoor is so ready to dismiss Apacalypto with his pre-canned academic analyses that he isn't even watching the same film as the rest of us.

Not logged in said:



Mon, 2008-06-30 19:31

His name is Kanishk Tharoor--not Karoor, genius.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><b> <i> <br> <p> <div> <img> <map>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
More information about formatting options

Demotix

Democracy Support

The openDemocracy / International IDEA debate

Read Democracy on the ground by Keith Brown

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance