Apocalypto

I watched Mel Gibson's Apocalypto last night on video. I have to say, it was one of the most historically accurate period pieces I've ever seen. I'm no expert on Mesoamerica, and I'm sure that scholars could find plenty of points of dispute regarding various details of the picture. Be that as it may, it was obvious that the film was meticulously crafted to communicate a by-and-large accurate picture of life in pre-Columbian Central America. The jewelry, the adornment of the various strata of Maya society, the contrast between small village life and a stratified Maya society with a powerful priest class, all of the details were excellent. Maybe not 100% accurate, but the film is very effective at presenting a WORLD, at communicating a complete and comprehensible vision of what life and society might have been like through the visual medium. It didn't rely on tedious exposition. It simply immerses the audience into the detail and allows the viewer to learn through observation. It was an engaging and intelligent choice for story telling.

The imagery and cinematography were excellent as well. The traditional costumes inspired by both Maya carving and archeological evidence were really beautifully realized, and gave the film a rich palette. The jungle scenes were lush. They used an over head "tree shot" several times. The camera seemed to be positioned about 40 feet up in a massive tree, giving the impression that you were a monkey or bird observing the frantic action of the people below. The city, on the other hand, while colorful, was shot brighter; the colors were much more washed out in the harsh light. Only the temple mount had strong reds and yellows.

Plot wise the movie was nothing special. Sort of a dark, Mesoamerican version of a standard fantasy tale. Prophecies, the one true hero, motive for escape, etc... It was certainly interesting enough. The real source of entertainment for me though was the film itself.

I have to say, if this had been produced and directed by a Mexican film company instead of Mel Gibson, it would have been lauded as an incredible landmark of historical fiction. Instead it was overshadowed by certain personal distractions of said actor/producer and a sort of "Passion of the Christ" hangover effect (oh, so it's all in a foreign language again eh?).

As reviews at the time noted, it IS really violent. Like Bravehart and Passion, Gibson doesn't flinch from portraying the brutality of historical life and combat. When you're making a film about a society that practices human sacrifice, you don't have much choice. I kept thinking about reading The Conquest of New Spain. One of the things that really struck me about Bernal Diaz del Castillo's narrative was the vivid descriptions of some of the cult practices of the Mexicans and Maya. Much is rightly made of the horrific and inhumane treatment of the indigenous people of Mesoamerica by the Spaniards, but it bears remembering that the Mexican regime they were supplanting was no picnic. Part of the reason that the expedition was successful was the willingness of vassal poli to cooperate with the invaders. Each year the conquered Maya cities had to send tributes of corn and human sacrifice to Techochtitlan. It's not clear that the devil they didn't know wound up being worse than the devil they did know.