http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4074

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.

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of various cultures mixing very little fact with a lot of fiction is, according to you, “one of the most important historical documents we have for understanding the settlers’ cultural inheritance.”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?

This should be good.

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.

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.

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..

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.”