Apocalypto - living history
February 10th, 2008 by joe
The movie Apocalypto is now ubiquitous on cable, and I strongly encourage everyone to watch it at least once since it is so freely available.
It skims the surface of the pre-conquest cultural life of Latin America.
There are a number of sources we need to follow to understand what is happening south of the border. The cultural history of the people is the essence of this story. The movie presents a comprehensive cultural history.
As we have now learned, our history is ours, and theirs is theirs. Just as we need to know where we come from, we need to know where the millions of settlers newly arrived to North America come from as well. This film is a depiction of their past.
Eventually I hope to catalogue an array of resources about the background of our neighbors to the south. To jump start the process, I encourage everyone to watch Apocalypto. In light of the ongoing illegal settlement of our nation, this movie is one of the most important historical documents we have for understanding the settlers’ cultural inheritance. Depicting the events of the early 1500s - while Michaelangelo was laboring to complete the painting of the Sistine Chapel - this is their history.
UPDATE: Read the comments.
This entry was posted on Sunday, February 10th, 2008 at 1:53 am and is filed under immigration. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 10th, 2008 at 2:45 am
Excellent movie, not for the squeamish though.. Hats off to Mel Gibson for taking on some of the myths surrounding these cultures. The Maya accomplished much, but they did have a very dark side.
February 10th, 2008 at 3:10 am
Gibson is quite a figure. It’s interesting, the stories he sees fit to tell.
February 10th, 2008 at 11:16 am
I do want to see this movie.
It is intresting to me how we often look back at previous cultures and civilizations marveling at their accomplishments without tempering our awe of their achievements.
Eqyptians, Mayans or Romans did some very impressive stuff, but then again it is pretty easy to go big with an endless supply of slaves.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
As an entertainment I enjoyed Apocalypto, too, but do you honestly believe, Joe, it’s “one of the most important historical documents we have for understanding the settlers’ cultural inheritance.” You have to be joking.
Numerous experts criticized the film for its historical innaccuracies:
“Gibson replays, in glorious big-budget Technicolor, an offensive and racist notion that Maya people were brutal to one another long before the arrival of Europeans and thus they deserved, in fact, needed, rescue,” wrote Traci Ardren, an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Miami.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/reviews/apocalypto.html
Many other experts agree:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061212/news_1c12mel.html
Do you believe the historical accuracy of every movie you see, Joe?
And what connection are you trying to make between the culture of Latin America today and the culture depicted in the film, however innaccurately? Are you claiming that they are savages and that justifies treating them as as less than human, the way many Americans and Europeans justified slavery by claiming that Africans were savages? Do you think that “Birth of a Nation” was also a “historical document”? And do you honestly believe that the Europeans who conquered the people of Latin America by slaughtering thousands of Indians were less savage?
February 10th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
This comment had links so it was put into moderation so I am reposting it without the links to experts talking about the historical innaccuracy of the film:
As an entertainment I enjoyed Apocalypto, too, but do you honestly believe, Joe, it’s “one of the most important historical documents we have for understanding the settlers’ cultural inheritance.” You have to be joking.
Numerous experts criticized the film for its historical innaccuracies:
“Gibson replays, in glorious big-budget Technicolor, an offensive and racist notion that Maya people were brutal to one another long before the arrival of Europeans and thus they deserved, in fact, needed, rescue,” wrote Traci Ardren, an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Miami.
Do you believe the historical accuracy of every movie you see, Joe?
And what connection are you trying to make between the culture of Latin America today and the culture depicted in the film, however innaccurately? Are you claiming that they are savages and that justifies treating them as as less than human, the way many Americans and Europeans justified slavery by claiming that Africans were savages? Do you think that “Birth of a Nation” was also a “historical document”? And do you honestly believe that the Europeans who conquered the people of Latin America by slaughtering thousands of Indians were less savage?
February 10th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
zimzo,
I have not seen the movie. I do know the Maya engaged in conquest and ritual human sacrifice. The whole of humanity’s history is replete with murder, enslavement, theft, rape and pillage. Are you trying to imply the Maya did not engage in the sordid and sorry behavior of the Asian, Europeans and Africans? Are they somehow not human?
February 10th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
No Zimzo, I am saying this is the history. I’ve read numerous histories of Mexico now, virtually all of which are “sympathetic,” and the depiction of pre-conquest Mexico in all of them matches what the film depicts. Obviously, the movie does not focus on the mundane, day to day life of the people. No movie does. But the war aspect is exactly what was happening at the time.
This is precisely why Cortez was able to basically conquer the “Aztec” (Mexica) nation with 400 Spanish men. There was so much discontent among other tribes, because of the oppressive Mexica system of tributes and constant war, that he was easily able to pull together a massive proxy military force.
This is also part of the reason the economic and political evolution of Mexico went in such a bad direction right from the outset. The Spanish just took installed themselves into the position formerly held by the Mexica - very broadly speaking, but essentially this is accurate.
Thus the feudal economy continued right on through - and past - Mexican “independence” which occurred only 40 years after American independence. Again, I am way overgeneralizing and probably missing some key facts, but this is pretty much what happened. The current oligarchic political system and two-class society can be seen as having arisen in part because of the colonial foundation.
Combined with a few other factors such as really, REALLY bad management and subsequently lots and lots of debt, Mexico just has never been able to get it quite right.
So my position is, it makes sense to understand the history and the movie accurately depicts a portion of that history.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I personally hate that movie, but Zimzo, I think you’re missing something. The film does show sympathetic characters … women and children and “good guys” who we root for and whose lives we fear for. In other words, humans. I don’t think it dehumanizes the race although it certainly depicts the savagery of an ancient warring culture.
February 10th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Most movies take artistic license in order to tell a story. The King of Kong film I wrote about last week was a documentary, and the filmmakers explain the Special Features they had to finesse some facts in order to make the conflict in the film more understandable for the audience.
In Apocalypto, Gibson for whatever reason grafted an actual historical scenario - the pre-Colombian social/political environment of Central Mexico - with a separate historical scenario - the post-decline Mayan civilization that might have existed in Eastern Mexico.
Honestly, if you know the history but did not know anything else about the movie, you’d watch it nodding your head saying “sensational but about right.” This is definitely my situation because I’ve seen it several times and had no idea it was supposed to be about the Mayans until I read Zimzo’s quote.
In reality, the Mayan civilization had declined substantially before the Aztec/Mexica had even arrived on the scene, and it was located in a different part of Mexico.
Some commentators make the case that the Mayans practiced “less” human sacrifice than the Aztecs - but that’s a distinction without a difference. Mayan temples have been found with evidence of an ungodly number of sacrificial victims.
So the story relates a situation that might have existed between the Aztecs and maybe the Tlaxcalans or Cholulans, neither of whom would have been represented as such a tiny jungle enclave - but you have to grant some license to make the story simpler. But then the filmmaker says it’s about the Mayans. Go figure.
The point remains, if you forget what Gibson says the movie is about, and just watch it, it provides a valuable depiction of the situation when the Spaniards arrived.
February 10th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
I’m all for understanding history, but it is ridiculous to refer to a Hollywood movie as an “important historical document” and in fact according to every repuatable historian of that period the film is full of inaccuracies. It is also dubious to claim there is any relevance to the “savagery” of some ancient Mayan tribes to Latin American culture. Furthermore, it is questionable to claim that the Mayans were more violent and “savage” than the Europeans who conquered them.
And Linda, while the movie does depict peace-loving Mayans, that certainly didn’t seem to be the point of Joe’s saying “In light of the ongoing illegal settlement of our nation, this movie is one of the most important historical documents we have for understanding the settlers’ cultural inheritance. Depicting the events of the early 1500s - while Michaelangelo was laboring to complete the painting of the Sistine Chapel - this is their history.” What was your point, Joe?
February 10th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Another note, that quote from the “professor” Ardren challenging its depiction of events “long before the arrival of Europeans” is a bit misleading and makes me wonder if the professor saw the film.
The movie obviously does not depict “long before” because the Europeans arrive at the end. It depicts the situation right before the arrival.
February 10th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Um, I guess my point was to say the movie shows the situation when the Spanish arrived, and people should watch the movie. I thought I made that clear. But thanks for the opportunity to clarify it for you.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Joe,
Are you basically telling me that I only had to read the text of your post to get your understanding? Then why are there all these comments? And why are you trying to clarify anything for zimzo? You know he never gets it as you will see in the next comments.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:54 am
I guess it’s a forest-for-the-trees kind of thing. I have to remember to break it down.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Joe writes: “Another note, that quote from the “professor” Ardren challenging its depiction of events “long before the arrival of Europeans” is a bit misleading and makes me wonder if the professor saw the film.”
That makes me wonder if you read the article. She points out that the last Mayan city was abandoned 300 years before the first European arrived, just one of many inaccuracies in a film you laughably referred to as an “important historical document.”
You still haven’t explained why you think this film is relevant to the issue of illegal immigration today and why you thought it was necessary to point out that the fictional events depicted in the film occurred “while Michaelangelo was laboring to complete the painting of the Sistine Chapel.” What bearing does that have on Latin American culture today? Does it have more or less bearing than the fact that Persians were inventing algebra while Europeans were barbarians?
February 11th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Joe - “Another note, that quote from the “professor” Ardren challenging its depiction of events “long before the arrival of Europeans” is a bit misleading and makes me wonder if the professor saw the film.”
The film appears to depict the Classic Maya, which was well before the arrival of the Spaniards. Large urban centers were the hallmark of the Classic Maya period. The Spanish arrived near the end of the post-Classic period. I think this was one of Ardren’s problems. She also is critical of Gibson not showing their contributions in the arts and sciences, but that was not the point of the movie, now was it ?
Ardren’s comment “an offensive and racist notion that Maya people were brutal to one another long before the arrival of Europeans” seems to say that if one does not accept the revisionist notion of spiritual peace loving indigenous peoples living in harmony, until the war-mongering Europeans changed everything, is a racist. This is the myth that Gibson exploded, because it needed to be.
We should also remember, that pretty much every culture has human sacrifice in it’s history. What is intriguing is that different cultures, separated by centuries of time and great distances, share this as a common past. Does this indicate that human sacrifice has more of a connection with human nature in a tribalistic society, or is it unique to polytheism ?
February 11th, 2008 at 11:05 am
I know the Mayans had declined many years earlier, Zimzo, that’s why I just wrote “In reality, the Mayan civilization had declined substantially before the Aztec/Mexica had even arrived on the scene, and it was located in a different part of Mexico,” and made the points about artistic license in my comment above - where I commented on artistic license and how Gibson had grafted two separate historical circumstances together.
It’s been so long since I had to do any real spoon-feeding, I guess I’m not very good at it any more. He told the story of the Aztecs but apparently used the Mayans as the characters.
By the way, there could have been some remnants of cities that might be called Mayan by the time the Spanish arrived. Although the classic Mayan period ended many hundreds of years earlier, there was a semi-rebirth on the Yucatan. The Mayan Chichen-Itza period. Maybe that’s what Gibson was reaching for, although the timing is still a little off.
Obviously, when the boats first pulled up to shore, whoever was on the Yucatan at the time is who would have first seen them and this is pretty far from where the Aztecs were. There are still Mayans in that general area of Central America today, so they certainly could have been there then.
The events in the film are much more representative of the Aztecs. Supposedly the principal city, now Mexico City, was cleaner than that depicted in the film - however the Spanish writings about the period describe encountering temples not greatly different than the pyramid in the film. Pretty grimy with blood, and the evident scenes of thousands of sacrifices.
But like I said, if you did not know these were supposed to be the Mayans, it would pass for a close approximation of what was happening with the Aztecs and their neighboring tribes when the Spanish arrived. The film does not say anywhere that I saw “We’re talking about the Mayans here.” So in that sense I still think it’s a valuable historical document.
Sort of like watching “Saving Private Ryan” and then finding out the director intended the setting to be the Spanish American War. You’d say “That ain’t right, but it was a pretty good depiction of D-Day anyway.”
February 11th, 2008 at 11:58 am
“Does it have more or less bearing than the fact that Persians were inventing algebra while Europeans were barbarians?”
Rather reckless statement, every society, including every society today, has it’s barbarians, and it’s enlightened. Maybe someone should remake the movie 300, where the Spartans are attacked by a million Persian geeks with slide rules..
February 11th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
An interesting movie, but I really don’t see that it has much more relevance to Mexico today than Disney’s “Pocahantas” has to the United States today.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Joe, you’re the one who called the film an “important historical document.” Please explain how a Hollywood film that contains so many historical inaccuracies qualifies as “an important historical document.”
You’re the one who said “The movie presents a comprehensive cultural history.” How is a film that completely ignores so many aspects of Mayan cultural history, as Professor Ardren points out, “comprehensive.”
You’re the one who claimed it was relevant to our current discussion of illegal immigration. How exactly is it relevant? What are you trying to say that the movie tells us about present-day Latin American culture?
What was your point in pointing out that “Michaelangelo was laboring to complete the painting of the Sistine Chapel” at the time these fictional events were taking place? Are you trying to say that European culture was more “advanced” 400 years ago and therefore Latin Americans are still 400 years behind Europeans? If so, then please explain the why you don’t think it is relevant that Persian and Arab cultures were so much more advanced than European culture 1000 years ago.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
So you have a problem with Michaelangelo too!? My, the self-hating malady is more deeply rooted than I could have expected.
Yes, as I explained about nine times now in this thread, the events depicted in the movie reflect what was happening in the valley of Mexico between the Mexica and numerous neighboring tribes. The movie does not reflect what was likely happening with the Maya - however, you can watch the movie four times and not know it has anything to do with the Maya since it does not say that anywhere (except in naming of Quetzlecoatle under the Mayan-Chitzen-Itchan name … K something, and I guess the language which I don’t happen to speak).
If there were really Aztec they’d be speaking Nahuatle … got me here.
If you want to know what was happening in central Mexico at the time of the Spanish arrival, this movie is a great depiction of that and approximates the historical accounts. Gibson stretched the truth to say it was about a different group of people. This allowed him to depict the main characters in the story actually see the boats arrive - which certainly they would not have really done from central Mexico, and to graft an extremely vague, basically evanescent, story line about the decline of the Mayan civilizaton.
But on the face of it, it’s a good historical movie. Watch it and get a history lesson, just remember it’s about the Aztecs, not the Maya.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Oh, and if you want to spell out your argument that European culture was not more “advanced” than what the Spanish encountered in Mexico - have at it my friend.
This should be good.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I think Joe has finally gone completely off the deep end. How enjoyable!
February 11th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I never said that European culture was or was not more advanced than Mexican culture in the 1500s. I was asking you what relevance the relative advancement of the two cultures has to European and Mexican cultures today “in light of the ongoing illegal settlement of our nation” as you termed it. If it has no relevance, why bring it up?
I am also curious to know how a Hollywood movie that “approximates the historical accounts” and is in fact a pastiche of various cultures mixing very little fact with a lot of fiction is, according to you, “one of the most important historical documents we have for understanding the settlers’ cultural inheritance.”
And finally, if I did “have a problem” with Michelangelo, which I don’t and never said I did, how would having a problem with a gay Italian artist from the Renaissance be evidence of self-hatred?
February 11th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Laura V,
If so, now you and zimzo have some company.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
My word, does anybody read anymore?
Ok since I am at the office and my books are all at home, and I don’t have time to google, I will have to do this from memory:
As the author Octavio Paz argued, the Aztec period represented a nadir in the freedom of the people of Mexico. Much of the cultural inheritance was carried forth through the various successive regimes - this all got off to a roaring start when the Spanish stepped into the Aztec role in setting up the basically feudal system they called encomiendo.
Even throughout the 20th century, Paz compared the political development of Mexico to a pyramid - hegemonic rule both by the single party or the presidency. He made the case that Mexico’s people had to throw off that Aztec traditon (this was significant in light of the fact that throughout Mexican history, neo-indigenous movements, including the Chicano movement, appropriated aspects of the Aztec period to represent the “nation” they harked back to).
Beyond Paz, as I mentioned, a variety of historical and other sources make the case, I believe, that the heritage is significant. Of course, to spell this out will require more time and space than the post - which was only meant to say, “watch the movie, it is good and depicts a historical period most people don’t know about, and which we all ought to know more about.”
Gibson did a pretty bang-up job showing us what was happening at the time of the conquest. He showed the wrong geographical area (thought this was not evident in the film until the last scene) and attempted to employ an anachronism which also was barely evident in the film.
Though I am obviously no expert I know the history better than most people and I watched the film several times without picking up that anything was askew. Clearly, I never read any reviews or commentary on it.
Since most of our readers, I will guess, don’t know any more of the history, it’s a safe recommendation to go watch the movie, you will learn something, just remember it’s depicting life at the time of the Aztecs, not the Maya.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Zimzo:
yes, the arab cultures were very advanced at one point. Then a very tragic thing happened, they clobbed onto the concept of a worldwide Islamic state and have been on a downward spiral ever since. The secret to an advanced society is knowing you have arrived and being smart enough to stay there. Our Arab friends didn’t get the memo.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Zimzo;
Let me add our Persian friends as being equally as clueless.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:45 am
[…] the question has come up in recent discussions: What was the true history of Mexico? …. I will endeavor in the coming weeks to provide some useful links for the benefit of our […]
July 13th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
The movie Apocalypto was based on the writings of Diego de Landa. Mel Gibson so stated at Cal State Northridge when Dr. Alicia Estrada asked him what his sources were. Diego de Landa was the self appointed head of the Spanish inquisition in the Yucatan. He was not an objective observer.
July 14th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
An interesting commentary :
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4074