# Apocolypto (& art & prejudice)



## Cloud (Nov 22, 2006)

I saw a preview for the film Apcolypto, which is about (I think) the end of the Mayan civilization, and was very excited, because:

1) it's really nice to see a film about non-Western people and tradition; and

2) it has lots of really gorgeous body art! Don't care if it's real or not, I'm going to be totally focused on all the wonderful tattoos, labrets, septum piercings, and other things shown on the preview.  I'm the kind of person that has to see historical or fantastical movies twice, because I'm so distracted by the costuming.  It will be a pivotal moment in the film and I'll be all, oh, look at that wonderful jade ear ornament!  

However . .. this film is directed by Mel Gibson.  So some people I know are saying they won't go see it because Gibson's a bigot.  This brings to mind our recent discussion here of Orson Scott Card and his views on homosexuality. 

Does art deserve to be experienced regardless of the views of its creator?  Certainly, none of us check out an author's personal views on the world BEFORE buying a book--it's only after success and publicity that we start making judgments.  

It's not a cut and dried question for me.  Perhaps it will lessen my enjoyment and appreciation for a piece of art, be it literature, film, or whatever if I know that the creator is a bad person (bigots are bad people).  But I'm a forgiving sort.  

And for all of you--are you going to stop watching Seinfeld re-runs now?


----------



## Cloud (Nov 23, 2006)

I'm crushed.  Crushed, I tell you! No one has responded.  D/n bode well for Mr. Gibson's vision.  But maybe y'all will when the movie comes out in a couple of weeks.


----------



## roddglenn (Nov 23, 2006)

Actually I'll be going to see it. I like Mel Gibson, despite his little drunken outburst which he subsequently apologised for anyway. Give the guy a break, I say. I'm sure we've all said things that we didn't mean from time to time and alcohol is usually a contributing factor! But besides that, I don't see why people would boycott a film just because of one person's input on it. Afterall, hundreds of other people were involved in its production too.

If you discovered that a cameraman on Citizen Kane was a Nazi or an editor on It's a Wonderful Life was a paedophile would it ruin your love of that film? 

Dislaimer - they were just two random films off the top of my head. I have no idea who the camermen or editors were, so please don't shoot me!


----------



## Coolhand (Nov 28, 2006)

For me it's a matter of degrees, depending on how much of that contributors “objectionable” viewpoint came through in the art. If the work simply serves as a flat mouthpiece for views I find offensive then I probably won’t see it. If it puts forward views I disagree with but does it in the context of an entertaining and thought provoking film/book/whatever then I might see it. 

But on the whole I think it’s a slippery slope to boycott something simply because you don’t agree with every single aspect of the artists political/religious/social/sexual views. Like Roddglenn says, chances are that somewhere down the line on ANY work of film/art/literature, someone you don’t like is going to take a cut of your cash. If you get too paranoid about it you’ll never get anywhere.

And shutting yourself off _totally_ from views you don’t like or find offensive can lead to a narrowing of the mind. I think having your own opinions challenged from time to time is a healthy thing, either to re-enforce confidence in your own opinions or to make you re-consider them.

Having said that, I saw the trailer and it just didn’t grab me. Sorry. Might see it on DVD though.


----------



## Delvo (Nov 28, 2006)

Something in the movie would have to remind me of what I dislike about the creator. In the latest "Mission: Impossible" movie, for example, the image of Tom Cruise himself was on the screen and his voice was in the speakers. But Mel Gibson is just a director here. Another way for the movie to scream at me that it's a personal product of the person is with the "subject matter". A highly political movie can remind me of other annoying political blather I've heard from the artist before, if I know of that person's offscreen involvement in the movie. In Mel Gibson's case, you could connect his drunken outburst at the cops to the subject of his previous movie ("The Passion of the Christ"), but not to Apocalypto, so that might imaginably give me a reason to avoid TPOTC, but can't have any effect on whether or not I'd see Apocalypto.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Nov 28, 2006)

A classic question. However, Gibson's transgressions are child's play compared to director Leni Riefenstahl's political associations and the films that resulted. What to do? Ban and burn and become what you beheld or take another, more passive-resistant path? 

I myself absolutely refuse to patronize the theatrical release of his films for any number of reasons exclusive of his rabid anti-Semitism and his vile uber-conservative politics (like, say, they're mindless, predictable, blatantly manipulative, pander to the lowest common denominator and promote an infantile view of human aggression). 

Ultimately, all true art is propaganistic by virtue of the fact that it advocates a distinct point of view. Whether it's judged to be timeless or merely timely, worthless or truly worthwhile is a decision best left to us the consumer and to history itself.


----------



## steve12553 (Nov 29, 2006)

As Coolhand said, it's definitely a matter of degrees. When an actor or director goes on a talk show and expounds a political view or advocates a predjudice or less than positive view of a group of people of any sort. he or she is taking their personality (flaws and all) and attaching them to their art. Gibson said some stupid things in a small arena, while drunk. He didn't stand by his comments but rather apologized for them. There is a big difference between an indiscretion and boldly being a racist or Nazi. People say stupid things when they drink. They say things that they may not believe and will probably be sorry for. I'll see the movie if I get interested enough. I avoid movies involving people who promote things I disagree with or dislike. Remember most drunken indiscretions involve married couples and the comments are hurtful because they feel hurt. Gibson may have been drunk enough to be paranoid especially after all the furor after his last directoral effort.


----------



## The Pelagic Argosy (Nov 29, 2006)

I loved the movie Braveheart.  No matter what Mel has subsequently slurred or what horrible things he might say in the future...too late, no take backs.  I still love that movie.  And I will continue to put the Braveheart DVD on my Xmas list until I finally get it.  

I didn't see Passion of the Christ.  I feel as if I have already OD'd on Christian mythology in my life:  I don't need to see the story of Jesus' crucifixion in such disturbing detail. 

As for Apocolypto, I would probably be interested in seeing it, based on Cloud's description.  I'm also a person who can enjoy a movie simply for the spectacle of its costumes and sets, and it sounds like Apocolypto would fit the bill.  Certainly the ancient peoples of central and south America have been neglected by Hollywood.  (Some might say they have been lucky not to have been exploited by Hollywood yet.)  If Mel can make the Mayan culture come alive, without making them come off as bloodthirsty savages, I say he is to be commended.  

I say good art is worth supporting for its own sake, regardless of the prejudices of its creator.


----------



## HoopyFrood (Nov 29, 2006)

I will probably go and see it because of the film's own merits and not be put off by who directs it or whatever. It looks like it will be quite a stunning film. Of course, if it turns out to be uninteresting _then_ I'll start having a dig at the director! But that will be for poor film production rather than any personal reasons.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Nov 29, 2006)

steve12553 said:


> As Coolhand said, it's definitely a matter of degrees. When an actor or director goes on a talk show and expounds a political view or advocates a predjudice or less than positive view of a group of people of any sort. he or she is taking their personality (flaws and all) and attaching them to their art. Gibson said some stupid things in a small arena, while drunk. He didn't stand by his comments but rather apologized for them. There is a big difference between an indiscretion and boldly being a racist or Nazi. People say stupid things when they drink. They say things that they may not believe and will probably be sorry for. I'll see the movie if I get interested enough. I avoid movies involving people who promote things I disagree with or dislike. Remember most drunken indiscretions involve married couples and the comments are hurtful because they feel hurt. Gibson may have been drunk enough to be paranoid especially after all the furor after his last directoral effort.



Hi Steve:

Drunken indiscretions aside, Mel and his father have been on public record for quite some time now as Holocaust deniers and members of a radical, ultra-conservative rogue Catholic splinter group that has - amongst other delights - rebuked Pope John XXIII's 1962 Second Ecumenical Vatican Council resolution that the Jews were not responsible for killing Christ. Perhaps to some this is all merely academic, but consider the ancillary progressive benefits of improving Judeo-Christian relations. 

On the other hand, Mel and his daddy and others of his ilk fan the flames of racial hatred, helping it to spread. Their belief systems - and the dissemination of such ideas through the mass media - are a serious regression at a critical time in history when we need it the least. 

Of course, personal responsibility plays a huge factor in the equation here - on both sides of the projection screen. There are some who would believe that artists should not be held to the same standards of conduct as the rest of the populace. I say that this idea is utter rubbish (and here I feel the need to point out that I am an artist too). 

Artists are an integral part of - not separate from - their society and, therefore, are not to be excluded from complying with its code of conduct. Such "favoured son" status is a violation of logic, which demands that if one is a participating member of a society and one's actions can affect its workings as well as allowing one to reap its benefits, then one cannot be held unaccountable or above the parameters of its laws and mores and hope for that society to continue functioning properly. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## steve12553 (Nov 30, 2006)

Not that I don't believe everything that anonomous poster on internet forums say, but off the top of your head, Curt, any idea where to find documentation. That definitely puts things in a different light, but I would like to see it in writing somewhere. On the other hand I really haven't been impressed with any of his movies since *Mad Max*.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Nov 30, 2006)

steve12553 said:


> Not that I don't believe everything that anonomous poster on internet forums say, but off the top of your head, Curt, any idea where to find documentation. That definitely puts things in a different light, but I would like to see it in writing somewhere. On the other hand I really haven't been impressed with any of his movies since *Mad Max*.



Hi Steve:

I received my information from 3 New York Times articles dating September 21, 2003 and August 3, 2003, respectively, by columnist Frank Rich entitled, _The Greatest Story Ever Sold_ and _The Martyrdom of Mel Gibson_ and yet another, even meatier one by Laurie Goodstein dated August 2, 2003 entitled, _Months Before Debut, Movie On Death of Jesus Causes Stir_. Please find the hyperlinks to the abstracts of these articles below:

The Greatest Story Ever Sold - Free Preview - The New York Times

Mel Gibson's Martyrdom Complex - Free Preview - The New York Times

Months Before Debut, Movie On Death of Jesus Causes Stir - Free Preview - The New York Times


----------



## Cloud (Nov 30, 2006)

oh, so if _the newspapers_ said it, it must be true.  

That's one of the problems I have with these types of arguments--who am I to judge people that I personally know, let alone people I will never meet?   I have a hard enough time dealing with my own faults and foibles. Why should I judge? How do I tell what's what? Does it matter?   Yeah, I know we all do it; Mel Gibson certainly does, but in the scheme of things for me _personally_, the art produced is more important.


----------



## steve12553 (Nov 30, 2006)

Curt's articles from the New York Times required 5 buck apiece. I found this one on my own which supplies plenty of ambiguity. 
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Mel Gibson's Father
I'm really glad I don't care enough about his work to really care what he thinks. His drunken arrest has probably done enough to his credibility to ever allow him a platform for his beliefs anyhow.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Nov 30, 2006)

Hi Steve:

Yes, I remember that March 9, 2003 article by Christopher Noxon, _Is the Pope Catholic . . . . Enough?_ published in the New York Times Magazine. If memory serves, that was possibly more informative then the other selections I named earlier. I read the Times online, but after a few weeks they archive the articles and charge a fee for a copy. I'm sorry I didn't have the foresight to copy it for free when I had the chance.

And you're right: In my opinion Mel isn't worth the 5 bucks for the article, let alone the 10 bucks to see his films.

Cloud:

Well, the New York Times isn't exactly the National Inquirer, is it? As Steve quoted Paul Newman earlier: it's a matter of degrees. Those articles were very professional and well-balanced reportage. Both sides of the controversy had ample opportunity to tell their side of the story. That Gibson _pere et fils_ chose to be so evasive and oblique in their answers tells us far more about their character than if they spoke bluntly.

But, everyone's entitled to their opinion. I respect you for yours. After you check out _Apocalypto_ dial back in to this channel and let us know your thoughts on it.


----------



## Cloud (Nov 30, 2006)

gotcha. Although, even if the movie sucks, I won't care; as I said, I'll be looking at the body art the whole time--

trying to decide if any are real, seeing how well they researched the practices, whether any piercings seem anachronistic or out of place, what materials they represent, whether there are any placements I've not seen before, etc.


----------



## Cloud (Dec 3, 2006)

some interesting and disturbing media hype coming out about the movie: 

"FOX News is calling Mel Gibson's new movie, "Apocalypto," the "most violent movie Disney has ever released. If you've wondered what it would be like to see heads and hearts removed without anesthesia, then this is the movie for you" 

From the TV guide website: "At this point it's hard to know what to expect from Mel Gibson, but all the familiar elements are here: sadism, sacrifice and salvation"

Well. At least it won't be _boring._


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Dec 3, 2006)

Cloud said:


> some interesting and disturbing media hype coming out about the movie:
> 
> "FOX News is calling Mel Gibson's new movie, "Apocalypto," the "most violent movie Disney has ever released. If you've wondered what it would be like to see heads and hearts removed without anesthesia, then this is the movie for you"
> 
> ...



Sounds like perfect fare for the whole family! Here's my tagline for their advertizing campaign: "Spend your Holiday Season with Mel Gibson and his pals the Aztecs as they maim, torture and dismember their way toward a frenzy of homoerotic epiphany and spiritual salvation!"


----------



## El_L1 (Dec 6, 2006)

I will see it and I am excited about it as well.


----------



## Lucien21 (Dec 6, 2006)

Not sure if I fancy this.

Gibson's last film was a remake of one of my favourite comedies, but it wasn't as funny.

P.s the Film is about the Mayans not the Aztecs


----------



## roddglenn (Dec 7, 2006)

lol Yes the original with Graham Chapman was much better 

Torture and dismemberment?  Sounds like a hoot!  Count me in!


----------



## intheknow (Dec 8, 2006)

saw it at an advanced screening...loved it.  beautiful film


----------



## BookStop (Dec 8, 2006)

intheknow said:


> saw it at an advanced screening...loved it. beautiful film


 
I am thinking intheknow is trying to reach the fifteen post limit - hmmmm


----------



## The Pelagic Argosy (Dec 13, 2006)

I still haven't seen this movie, but I found this editorial interesting:

James P. Pinkerton: 'Apocalypto' now - sacbee.com


----------



## nightsavior (Dec 17, 2006)

The problem is anytime someone is famous and screws up royally we are in an outrage. Yet if say it is Bob our neighbor we forgive him in a weeks time. We put well known people high on pedestals then get angry when they act "common" like the rest of us. So whose fault is it? Theirs for being flawed and human or ours for expecting them to be more then human? I'd say it is ours.

I recently delighted in venting some rage at the author Terry Goodkind. I'm not taking back everything I said but by being among "the anti Sword of truth" crowd I learned some people "hate" the man with such intensity they act more fanatical and twisted then the people they bash. Even for saying I found Goodkind's reads mildly entertaining I got the smack down though I also gave a long analysis of things I disliked in the first two books. Do I have to confess my complete bigotry and loathing of a subject to fit in to a crowd? I certainly hope not. 

With Mel I think he wasn't pushing an agenda. He got drunk and acted like an ass. On the basis I too have acted like an ass and have put my stinky foot in my mouth can I judge Gibson? Not really, or anyone else. Apcolypto looked like a good movie from the previews. Also I'd like to see more stories about heroes from different ethnical backgrounds. I'm white and find caucasians to be painfully boring. Another-words the grass in greener on the other side. lol.

The problem is with the internet we can know practically anything about anyone. Face it we all have a collection of skeletons  in our closets even those of us that are good caring people.

Remember "fan" comes from the word fanatic. And honestly nothing is more zealous then a fan that upholds one thing and trashes everything else. Even if they are reacting to "fan baby idiots" by retaliating they are being no better by fueling the fire and countering the trolling with equal heaps of stupidity.

I'm a fan of Gibson? No, but Apcolypto does seem interesting so I'll end up watching it at some point.


----------

