Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter T Chattaway

Apocalypto

Recommended Posts

It's not that I think the carnage is unnecessary to the story. But I'm wondering if this story is worth the carnage. Undecided at this point.
That is very well put, Darrel. It sounds like you and I are in very much the same place on the film.

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Jeff.

Steve, Darrel: Without divulging your opinions of the film, if you had to sum up the film's main message in one sentence, what would you say it is? I ask because I'm having difficulty drawing any sort of modern-day application, despite Gibson's allusions to contemporary situations in his recent comments about "Apocalypto." Regardless of what Gibson has said, or what you think he might have meant, what do you each think the movie's message was?

Edited by Christian

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. This is the most violent movie I've ever seen.

Are you surprised it got an "R" rating? And without any problem, according to Gibson's interview in Entertainment Weekly:

Any trouble getting an R rating, rather than an NC-17, from the MPAA?

Not at all. They said, ''Boy, this is violent, we're giving it an R.'' And I said, ''Fine.'' That's what it is


"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It sounds like you've all subjected yourselves to a big-budget, well-executed version of Saw. Sadism porn is so in these days.
That is one possible take, on the more cynical and reductionist side (that is meant descriptively, not at all evaluatively or pejoratively; sometimes cyncism and reductionism are the correct response).

OTOH, it could be argued that Saw is about a villain who inflicts horrible sufferings, whereas Apocalypto, like TPOTC and Braveheart, is about a hero who endures horrible sufferings -- and, in some way or another, overcomes.

It is also, in a quite naked and primal sense, about manhood. Providing and defending, honor and shame. Fear of powerlessness, of impotence, of inability to prevent the destruction of one's life and world. The crippling effects of fear, and the power of fearlessness. There are elements of providence, of reaping and sowing, of grace and judgment.

It might be possible to view all of this as a sanctifying gloss on an essentially sadistic movie.

Or it may be that the violence and sadism in Gibson's films is there precisely because that's where he finds the element of sanctification and grace that runs through his work.

Christian: Does this go at all toward an answer to your question?


“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian: Does this go at all toward an answer to your question?

I think so.

I would suggest that the movie

Edited by Christian

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OTOH, it could be argued that Saw is about a villain who inflicts horrible sufferings, whereas Apocalypto, like TPOTC and Braveheart, is about a hero who endures horrible sufferings -- and, in some way or another, overcomes.

I'm never going to watch Saw or Apocalypto, so perhaps I should just butt out, but I'm not at all convinced that, from the perspective of the person sitting in the theater, there's any significant difference between the two sides of your dichotomy. In both cases, the viewer becomes thrilled by the spectacle of violence, thus participating in the film's sadism. If pushed on the point, I might even be willing to argue that the Saws of the world are less morally problematic than the Bravehearts because they don't give audiences the comforting (and even self-satisfying) delusion of having experienced some kind of banal imitation of sanctification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OTOH, it could be argued that Saw is about a villain who inflicts horrible sufferings, whereas Apocalypto, like TPOTC and Braveheart, is about a hero who endures horrible sufferings -- and, in some way or another, overcomes.

I'm never going to watch Saw or Apocalypto, so perhaps I should just butt out, but I'm not at all convinced that, from the perspective of the person sitting in the theater, there's any significant difference between the two sides of your dichotomy. In both cases, the viewer becomes thrilled by the spectacle of violence, thus participating in the film's sadism. If pushed on the point, I might even be willing to argue that the Saws of the world are less morally problematic than the Bravehearts because they don't give audiences the comforting (and even self-satisfying) delusion of having experienced some kind of banal imitation of sanctification.

This last post just reminded me of the exact same conversation Ian Faith had with Spinal Tap members as to why the original album cover for "Smell the Glove" was sexist, while another album, with equally lurid images, was okay (he was the victim!)...

That said, Darren, you may be right on a deep, interior, psychologically primal-level, but nobody would ever know for certain. For me, giving "The Passion of the Christ" and, well, "Die Hard" a postive context made me endure the sadism in those movies, whereas it also made me avoid "HostelSawWolfCreekIII"...


Nick Alexander

Keynote, Worship Leader, Comedian, Parodyist

Host of the Prayer Meeting Podcast - your virtual worship oasis. (Subscribe)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen Apocalypto yet, but I did just rewatch Braveheart, and so I hope these thoughts have some relevance.

I had forgotten how brutal the violence in Braveheart is. In particular the two cases where a character's throat is slit - once offscreen, once onscreen - sickened me. My immediate reaction was to want to turn the movie off - but the first 45 minutes or so of that movie, before the fighting really begins, are so strong that I resolved to stick with it to the end.

The onscreen violence is, for me, neither thrilling nor even exciting. It is gruesome and nearly impossible to watch. I fully expect, when I do see Apocalypto, to close my eyes from time to time. (If only I could close my ears just as easily, since as much of the effect comes from the sounds as the images.) However, in the case of Braveheart, at least, I didn't feel that I, as the viewer, was participating in it as spectacle, in the same way that I would in, say, a martial arts flick. The crucial dichotomy is, I think, between realistic violence and stylized violence (whether that be Crouching Tiger-style expressionistic or Fist of Legend-style slapstick). I might be able to enjoy seeing a fight, even a fight to the death, if I can get some distance from it psychologically. If, however, it demands to be seen as real, as happening Now before my eyes, then there's no way that it would be enjoyable, since I don't enjoy seeing real violence.

I have no idea if this perspective is one which Gibson shares, since I get the feeling that both Braveheart and Apocalypto, if not The Passion, are intended to be more entertaining and less disturbing than I found, or expect to find, them. But I can't help but think that The Passion is evidence that Gibson takes violence in his movies very seriously, and thinks it is there to be meaningful, and not just for the sake of either shocking or exciting people.

That's the generous interpretation, at least the way I see it.

Edited by David Smedberg

That's just how eye roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick thought, walking out the door -- a thought on principle, not this specific film.

Drama generally involves conflict. Conflict generally involves subjecting characters to stressful situations. Stress generally involves suffering.

Often enough, such movies can be stressful for the viewer as well as the characters.

The Passion of Joan of Arc depicts a protagonist suffering great emotional distress, verbally and emotionally bullied, threatened with physical torture.

Andrei Rublev includes disturbing depictions of violence, sadism and suffering, in some cases even real suffering (of animals).

A few random movie titles that come to mind: The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, Schindler's List, Hotel Rwanda, Jaws, On the Waterfront. These movies can be hard to watch.

Others that I wouldn't necessarily want to defend, but some would: Pulp Fiction, Requiem for a Dream, GoodFellas, Fight Club, Taxi Driver.

I think we have a complicated subject here. I don't think it's as simple as "a lot of hard-to-watch cruelty and suffering = a degrading, sadistic film."

Not that I think you're saying anything like that, Darren. But so far I think the heavy lifting in the discussion remains to be done.


“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darren: I haven't seen Saw, but here's Gibson's take on the violence:

There is one point where a guy jumps over a waterfall and brains himself on a rock. I don't want people to watch that piece. I've given them plenty of time to close their eyes, because that's really heinous.

--(insert stunned laughter, or gasps, here)

Hmmm. The print I saw didn't have a message flashing saying "close your eyes now". True, you know it's going to happen. You don't know when or how graphic it will be.


A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it last night at the AVCO in Westwood. (Darrel, were you there?)

From my perspective, the violence in Apocalypto, while gruesome, is nevertheless tolerable because it's context is spectacle. Instead of limbs being lopped off by a chainsaw (intolerable), we get severed heads tumbling down great stone ziggurats (tolerable). As a boy who grew up with Edgar Rice Burroughs and Rudyard Kipling, I can see some merit in this kind of unembarrassed showmanship. There is also a ubiquitous sense of moral rectitude

Edited by Nathaniel

"A great film is one that to some degree frees the viewer from this passive stupor and engages him or her in a creative process of viewing. The dynamic must be two-way. The great film not only comes at the viewer, it draws the viewer toward it." -Paul Schrader

Twitter     Letterboxd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my perspective, the violence in Apocalypto, while unduly gruesome at times, is nevertheless tolerable because it is within the context of spectacle. Instead of limbs being lopped off by a chainsaw, we get severed heads tumbling down great stone ziggurats.

And so much more! Why stop with the severed heads? What about the

multiple removal of organs

? I guess that's spectacle, too, sort of, but those scenes of severed heads are merely one (extended) section of the movie. There's the waterfall scene mentioned above, a

face-eating scene

(also mentioned above, although I'm blacking it out here because it may have been blacked out above), and so much blunt, brutal bloodletting that, at some point, it's hard to put it in any context.

As a boy who grew up with Edgar Rice Burroughs and Rudyard Kipling, I can see some merit in this kind of unembarrassed showmanship. There is also a ubiquitous sense of moral rectitude
Edited by Christian

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I think you're saying anything like that, Darren. But so far I think the heavy lifting in the discussion remains to be done.

I've started a discussion on this in the criticism and appreciation forum to do the heaving lifting on this and not derail the Apocalypto discussion. (Although there is still room for it here as it applies to the film, but the broader issue may be better served there.)

And Nate, I was at AVCO -- awful venue for a screening.


A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Alexander wrote:

: This last post just reminded me of the exact same conversation Ian Faith had with Spinal Tap

: members as to why the original album cover for "Smell the Glove" was sexist, while another album,

: with equally lurid images, was okay (he was the victim!)...

Brilliant!

David Smedberg wrote:

: I had forgotten how brutal the violence in Braveheart is. In particular the two cases where a

: character's throat is slit - once offscreen, once onscreen - sickened me. My immediate reaction was

: to want to turn the movie off - but the first 45 minutes or so of that movie, before the fighting really

: begins, are so strong that I resolved to stick with it to the end.

I don't think there's any question that Gibson wants you to "enjoy" the onscreen throat-slitting, at least in the sense that vengeance or justice is being meted out there; the offscreen throat-slitting, OTOH, is a flagrantly immoral act of injustice, and thus Gibson spares us the full gore. I actually referred to this in my review of Braveheart, though without mentioning throat-slitting specifically, and in our thread on Gibson's first two movies:

But back to the violence, of which there is a lot in this film. Scenes of stabbings, impalings, beheadings, amputations, and suchlike on the battle field are one thing, and this film sure does revel in them. But the film also features scenes of bloody one-on-one revenge that, I think, should give any Christian pause -- especially a Christian who says his film about Jesus is supposed to be all about forgiveness. Murron's throat is kept off-camera when the sheriff cuts it, but Gibson gives us a good look at the sheriff's throat as Wallace slashes it open; similarly, when a Scottish nobleman betrays Wallace, Wallace rides a horse into the nobleman's bedroom, reveals the ball-and-chain dangling from his hand (and in slow-motion, to boot), and then brings the ball down on the nobleman, violently crushing his head before our eyes. What's more, the battle scenes are noticeably lacking in the sort of self-reflection that we find in, say,
Gladiator
(or even the extended
Two Towers
); when the first savage battle, at Stirling, is over and Wallace's men are victorious, the crowd cheers and the music swells and Wallace, his face covered in blood, clearly basks in the moment. The next battle scene, at Falkirk, is the one where Wallace and his men are betrayed by the nobles, and THIS battle is followed by mournful music, but only because Robert the Bruce feels guilty for betraying Wallace.

Gibson also says he had planned to show all the gory details of Wallace's disembowelment at the end, and he might have actually filmed it, but he cut that stuff out because people (I think he even says women, specifically) were getting out of their seats and running out of the theatres. The chief torturer even had a line to the effect that the crowd would now get to see all the torturing implements that had just been uncovered put to use, but it was this line that was sending people out of the theatre, so Gibson dubbed in a new line altogether (which was easy to do, because the chief torturer happens to say this in a wide shot, when the camera is so far away that you can't read his lips anyway). Given all the hoopla over the gory violence that Gibson plans to put into
The Passion
, and given that so many of the advance reports make Gibson's death-of-Jesus movie sound like a real endurance test, I found this revelation of Gibson's rather interesting. (FWIW, the DVD is copyrighted 2000, so the commentary must have been recorded by then, years before Gibson put
The Passion
into production.)

nardis wrote:

: One of my questions is "Why should anyone have to feel that a movie is an endurance test?"

It's a guy thing.

That's the glib answer, but I did just happen to read this item at Rod Dreher's "Crunchy Con" blog tonight, in which a woman talks (or, rather, is cited talking) about the male need for demanding challenges, etc. So that's on the brain at the moment.

And of course, Gibson's movies are ALL steeped in questions of masculinity, at least as he perceives it.

: Another is "Why does Gibson feel that graphic violence is necessary?" (I'm sure he has answers

: for the latter, but I doubt I want to hear them.)

Fair enough, but as with Borat and any number of other controversial movies, so here; criticisms of a film should be at least somewhat restrained if the person making the criticisms has never seen the film, and indeed is making a point of never seeing the film and possibly never even hearing the other arguments. It spoils the fun being had by those who HAVE seen the film and want to analyze it knowledgeably.

To no one in particular: Just for the record, I have seen Saw but not its sequels, and I have not seen Hostel, though I did see Turistas the other day and didn't quite know how to react. I gather it's one of the milder "torture porn" movies out there these days, and it was such a shallow flick that I never really "felt" the violence the way that I might have if the film were remotely interesting or realistic; the explicit political theme was also a bit of a distraction. But I also thought it was pretty base, and unjustifiably so, in the way that the big extracting-a-person's-organs-while-that-person-is-conscious scene focused on a naked female torso. I mean, just the framing of the introductory shots was pretty titillating. And, once again, the film's "horror" elements underscored an essentially conservative outlook; e.g., the people who suffer worst happen to be the most sexually adventurous characters in the movie.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I emerged from Braveheart weary, sick to my stomach, and almost angry at how indulgent Gibson was with the violence. The narrative felt like an excuse for Gibson to portray violent spectacle. I've tried to see what so many Braveheart fans see in that film, but subsequent viewings have made me feel even sicker.

Thus, when I saw The Passion of the Christ, I just had this nagging feeling that part of what drew Gibson to the project was the chance to graphically illustrate even more bloody punishments.

Reading all of this about Apocalypto makes me very reluctant to put myself through it.

I have a feeling that Apocalypto will taint The Passion. I've read so many detailed defenses of Gibson's work on that film, so many justifications for filming all of that bloodshed. But I just didn't feel we were getting much storytelling. The flashbacks felt flimsy and tacked-on and incongruously artificial when juxtaposed with the realism of the violence. I felt like he was testing us, just to see how much we could take. By doing this with movie after movie, he makes The Passion seem like it's intended more as another variation of the Gibson Endurance Test and less as a work of sacred art.

I feel the same way about Lars Von Trier. Every narrative film he makes convinces me further that he is just getting off on conspiring to make his characters... especially the women... suffer extravagantly, and disgrace themselves onscreen.

I prefer artists who serve the audience to those who decide to see how much we're willing to take.


P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Veering from the violence for a moment, I have an astronomical question. I seem to recall a rather large full moon in the film. Since there is also

a solar eclipse

that is important to the plot, are we to assume that the woman and child have been in the sistern at least 2 weeks while all this is going on?


A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one's for you, Jeff!:

With co-screenwriter Farhad Safinia, Gibson has cooked up a scenario that is fundamentally a survival and chase film, with a final act that trades on the human hunt motif of "The Most Dangerous Game" and Cornel Wilde's "The Naked Prey."

But both the grand conception of a civilization in decline and the extraordinary detail with which the society is presented make the picture much more than that, to the extent that it startlingly echoes another portent-laden year-end release, Alfonso Cuaron's "Children of Men;" one film is set in the past, the other in the near-future, one was made in Mexico by a Yank-Aussie, the other in Britain by a Mexican, but both are contemporaneously resonant stories of pursuit through poisoned, dangerous lands on the brink.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Smedberg wrote:

: I had forgotten how brutal the violence in Braveheart is. In particular the two cases where a

: character's throat is slit - once offscreen, once onscreen - sickened me. My immediate reaction was

: to want to turn the movie off - but the first 45 minutes or so of that movie, before the fighting really

: begins, are so strong that I resolved to stick with it to the end.

I don't think there's any question that Gibson wants you to "enjoy" the onscreen throat-slitting, at least in the sense that vengeance or justice is being meted out there; the offscreen throat-slitting, OTOH, is a flagrantly immoral act of injustice, and thus Gibson spares us the full gore. I actually referred to this in my review of Braveheart, though without mentioning throat-slitting specifically, and in our thread on Gibson's first two movies:

But back to the violence, of which there is a lot in this film. Scenes of stabbings, impalings, beheadings, amputations, and suchlike on the battle field are one thing, and this film sure does revel in them. But the film also features scenes of bloody one-on-one revenge that, I think, should give any Christian pause -- especially a Christian who says his film about Jesus is supposed to be all about forgiveness. Murron's throat is kept off-camera when the sheriff cuts it, but Gibson gives us a good look at the sheriff's throat as Wallace slashes it open; similarly, when a Scottish nobleman betrays Wallace, Wallace rides a horse into the nobleman's bedroom, reveals the ball-and-chain dangling from his hand (and in slow-motion, to boot), and then brings the ball down on the nobleman, violently crushing his head before our eyes. What's more, the battle scenes are noticeably lacking in the sort of self-reflection that we find in, say,
Gladiator
(or even the extended
Two Towers
); when the first savage battle, at Stirling, is over and Wallace's men are victorious, the crowd cheers and the music swells and Wallace, his face covered in blood, clearly basks in the moment. The next battle scene, at Falkirk, is the one where Wallace and his men are betrayed by the nobles, and THIS battle is followed by mournful music, but only because Robert the Bruce feels guilty for betraying Wallace.

Gibson also says he had planned to show all the gory details of Wallace's disembowelment at the end, and he might have actually filmed it, but he cut that stuff out because people (I think he even says women, specifically) were getting out of their seats and running out of the theatres. The chief torturer even had a line to the effect that the crowd would now get to see all the torturing implements that had just been uncovered put to use, but it was this line that was sending people out of the theatre, so Gibson dubbed in a new line altogether (which was easy to do, because the chief torturer happens to say this in a wide shot, when the camera is so far away that you can't read his lips anyway). Given all the hoopla over the gory violence that Gibson plans to put into
The Passion
, and given that so many of the advance reports make Gibson's death-of-Jesus movie sound like a real endurance test, I found this revelation of Gibson's rather interesting. (FWIW, the DVD is copyrighted 2000, so the commentary must have been recorded by then, years before Gibson put the Passion into production.

Yeah, when I was browsing through trying to find our (non-existent) topic for Braveheart, I saw your post, but I'm not sure that the difference can be chalked up so easily to justice vs. injustice. After all, Murron is not only innocent but also a woman, and so the cut-away from seeing her death could be because she's a woman, and either Gibson actually has a problem with graphic violence against women or he knows that many other people do and so that's a taboo he doesn't want to touch. Then again, as I said, I found both cases disturbing, mainly because of the gurgly sounds both made as they died. ::mf_hide::

As for whether he intends for us to "enjoy" it, any response I might make will go in Darrel's new thread, since I don't want to take this topic completely off track.

Edited by David Smedberg

That's just how eye roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The violence in Apocaylpto felt like a cheap and manipulative device to up the tension.

With the almost constant bloodletting, I was tense and tight throughout the whole movie. I think that feeling is very easily confused with the feeling of true intensity. They both seem to come from the same place.

I have much more to say about the film but am I not allowed to directly say how I feel until it officially opens?

Edited by Spoon

"I am quietly judging you" - Magnolia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see what Mel's done with the profits from all those sold-out church-sponsored screenings of The Passion, isn't it? :)


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed Gonzalez at Slant:

Mel Gibson is sick, but his new film profits from his weakness. When he inserted a photo of himself into the trailer for Apocalypto, he wasn't just needling his critics
Edited by Jeffrey Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Jeff.

Steve, Darrel: Without divulging your opinions of the film, if you had to sum up the film's main message in one sentence, what would you say it is? I ask because I'm having difficulty drawing any sort of modern-day application, despite Gibson's allusions to contemporary situations in his recent comments about "Apocalypto." Regardless of what Gibson has said, or what you think he might have meant, what do you each think the movie's message was?

Of course the quote from Durant at the beginning of the film is suppose to give us the key. It's been pubilicized what Gibson wants to say in the film. I'm not sure that I'd get that message without the quote. I'm not sure I get that messsage even with the quote.

Is it about the decay of civilization (one in particular and others by extension)? It gives us no clue as to what the civilization was like previously. It seems far more the noble savage of the agrarian people as opposed to the evil of the city dwellers (civilization).


A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed Gonzalez wrote:

: When Gibson went batshit in Los Angeles, even his knee-jerk apologists could no longer ignore the

: anti-Semitism that informs The Passion of the Christ, just as the director's homophobia was crucial

: to his vile Braveheart.

Or, for that matter, if Apocalypto is as indulgent with the violence as some people say it is, perhaps Gibson's knee-jerk apologists will also no longer be able to ignore the sadism/masochism that informs The Passion of the Christ -- an element that was pretty obvious before, but many people were inclined to excuse it because, oh, well, it's "biblical" or something. The possibility that Gibson might just happen to like the blood and guts, and a "religious" variation on this theme merely gave him an opportunity to "baptize" his baser impulses, arguably got short shrift. (Mind you, I say this as one who actually likes blood and guts, but I like to think that I am still sensitive to the ways in which these special effects are used within a film's narrative.)

I am particularly curious to hear what the church crowd makes of this film, given that it was essentially funded with church money (i.e. with the money that the church crowd spent to see The Passion).

Then again, a significant chunk of the church crowd thinks Braveheart is not only a good film, but a film after which we should be modelling our lives, or something, so who knows, maybe Apocalypto won't faze them at all. And I must say, I do find it interesting that Braveheart, a film that was somewhat pivotal in ratcheting up the blood-and-gore quotient in our multiplexes (through its influence on Saving Private Ryan and all the war movies that followed), was the work of two conservative Christians (screenwriter Randall Wallace and director Mel Gibson).


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...