Apocalypto: Praise for Gibson Film, Quandary for Oscar Voters

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
From: RePorterNoteBook@aol.com Date: 06/12/06

By SHARON WAXMAN

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 4 - With some early reviews lauding the audacity and
innovation of Mel Gibson's bloody Mayan epic, "Apocalypto," Hollywood's
tight-knit community of Oscar voters may find itself facing a difficult
dilemma in the coming weeks: Will they consider the film for an Academy
Award?

Since Mr. Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews last summer, many people
in Hollywood swore - both publicly and privately - that they would not
work with him again or see his movies.

But that was before the critics began to weigh in on "Apocalypto," a
two-hour tale about a peaceful village of hunter-gatherers who are
attacked and enslaved by the bloodthirsty overlords of their
Meso-American civilization.

Mr. Gibson wrote, directed, produced and financed the film, much as he
did "The Passion of the Christ," his surprise 2004 blockbuster; the Walt
Disney Company is distributing the film.

"Apocalypto," which will open on 2,500 screens across the country on
Friday, is as different from a typical Hollywood film as Mr. Gibson's
last one: it features unrelenting, savage violence, is told in an
obscure Mayan language and uses many nonprofessional actors with a
primitive look born far from Hollywood.

Most critics (including this newspaper's) have yet to weigh in on
"Apocalypto," but the excitement of those who have - like that among
journalists who lingered to debate the film after a screening ended in
Los Angeles last week - has been palpable.

" 'Apocalypto' is a remarkable film," Todd McCarthy wrote in Variety.
"The picture provides a trip to a place one's never been before,
offering hitherto unseen sights of exceptional vividness and power."

"Gibson has made a film of blunt provocation and bruising beauty," Peter
Travers wrote in Rolling Stone. "Say what you will about Gibson, he's a
filmmaker right down to his nerve endings."

Other reviewers allowed themselves to psychoanalyze Mr. Gibson even as
they praised the film. In a mixed review in The Hollywood Reporter, Kirk
Honeycutt observed that Mr. Gibson "knows how to make a heart-pounding
movie; he just happens to be a cinematic sadist."

The rising tide of generally positive, if qualified, reviews poses a
problem for Hollywood insiders, many of whom would prefer to ignore Mr.
Gibson entirely, despite his formal apology and a trip to rehab.
Powerful players like Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures
Entertainment, and Ari Emanuel, of the Endeavor talent agency have
publicly disavowed Mr. Gibson, with Mr. Emanuel writing online last
summer that "people in the entertainment community, whether Jew or
gentile, need to demonstrate that they understand how much is at stake
in this by professionally shunning Mel Gibson and refusing to work with
him."

Other studio chiefs have said they would not work with Mr. Gibson in the
future but would not say so for attribution because they didn't want to
endanger their future business dealings. At least one influential
publicist has declined to work on an "Apocalypto" Oscar campaign because
of objections to Mr. Gibson's views, but would not say so publicly for
similar reasons. And yet, can the 5,830 voting members of the Academy of
Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences - an organization that like broader
Hollywood, includes many people who are Jewish - ignore a film that may
well be considered by critics to be among the best of the year?

Murray Weissman, who has worked on Oscar campaigns for many years and is
working for the Weinstein Company on its hopefuls this year, said some
voters would not see the film on principle.

"There is still a lot of resentment out there among the Academy members,
certainly the Jewish group of them, over the incident," he said. "There
are a lot of people who are very unforgiving. I have run into some who
say they will not see any more Mel Gibson movies."

Yet, Mr. Weissman added, those who saw the movie and believed it
deserving would vote for it. "The movie academy is of full of
professionals; they will respect a good movie," he said. "If the guy
made a classic film and it's absolutely brilliant - hey, I'm Jewish -
I'd probably embrace it. But going in, I'm shocked and dismayed at his
behavior."

The problem posed by Mr. Gibson touches on an age-old question of
whether an artist's personal behavior ought to be a factor in judging
his or her work.

The question is not a new one even in the brief history of cinema, which
includes people like D. W. Griffith, the visionary feature director
whose work fed racist stereotypes; Leni Riefenstahl, whose
ground-breaking talent served Nazi Germany; or Roman Polanski, who in
1977 pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor and then fled the
country, which did not prevent him from winning the Oscar for best
director in 2003 for "The Pianist."

As Richard Schickel writes in the Dec. 11 issue of Time magazine,
"Gibson is a primitive all right, but so were Cecil B. DeMille and D. W.
Griffith, and somehow we survived their idiocies." Disney has taken a
low-key approach to the Oscars, awaiting a general sense from critics
and influential voices in Hollywood. The film was not on a list of
screenings for Oscar consideration sent to Academy members, and no
screenings are scheduled with question-and-answer sessions featuring Mr.
Gibson, as has become the custom for movies vying for Oscar consideration.

But as the film has been gathering critical support, executives at the
studio have begun to refer to "Apocalypto" as their "Million Dollar
Baby," the small movie directed by Clint Eastwood that came from behind
two years ago to win best picture at the Oscars. And the studio is
planning to send out "screeners," DVDs sent to Academy members.

"From Day 1 we'd hoped that people would judge the movie on its artistic
merits and judge Mel as a director," said Dennis Rice, a Disney studio
spokesman. "We believe they'll separate their feelings of Mel the man
from Mel the artist."

But in addition to the other issues, the film's sheer violence - which
includes decapitation and hearts ripped from the chests of human
sacrifice victims - could turn off some voters, whatever their feelings
toward the director.

"Once the reviews come out and it's perceived to be a foreign language
film with that kind of violence, you will have trouble getting people to
actually go see it," said one seasoned Oscar campaigner, who declined to
speak for attribution because of business ties to Disney.

"There will be a degree of resistance, And Mel would be the first one to
say, 'I anticipate a degree of ambivalence,' he knows that," said Peter
Bart, the editor of Variety . "The violence is an issue. But that's the
way he is. That's the way he sees the world."
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/08/03/rob-schneider-takes-out-f_n_26465.html?p=2

Rob Schneider Takes Out Full Page Ad In Variety To Declare: "Even If Mr. Gibson Offered me The Role In Passion Of The Christ 2...I Would Say "NO"...

What about Jews who think the same or worse as Mel Gibson? by Michael
Santomauro RePorterNoteBook@aol.com

I have met a sizable number of Jews who think that Jews create most of
the problems in the world. Except for a few most are boastful about it!
This is the major reason I got so enthralled with the subject matter I
address: The Jewish Question.

I remember about 25 years ago explaining to a Jewish-American woman I
was having a dinner date with, that an author I was reading was saying
that Galileo, Newton and Darwin are the hinges for the modern
advancement of our civilization. I thought to myself, Galileo more so
than Descarte? Then I tried to express to her that I thought it was
sloppy thinking not to see the nuances of dozens of other great thinkers
in the sciences in between the era's of these great men, that
contributed to their work either in a direct or indirect way. Before I
could finish she says "and they were all Jewish." I asked "who?" She
says "the three men you mentioned"

My mind was so far removed from knowing who was Jewish and who was not.
There was a delayed reaction on my part to her interjection, that had
nothing to do with my conversation with her. I then said that I didn't
know if Isaac Newton was Jewish, but that Galileo was excommunicated
from the Catholic church for his thought crimes and I was pretty sure if
Darwin was Jewish I would have heard about it from my many ethnocentric
Jewish friends. For the sake of the conversation I granted her wanting
need for Newton to be Jewish, since I did not know or care. But, she
kept insisting that Darwin was Jewish too! My head was spinning with why
are Jews so obsessed on who is Jewish and should I confront her about
that. Or keep my mouth shut and play dumb, since my goal after dessert
was to get intimate with her. Sex or debate? I decided on the debate!

"What difference does it make?" I asked. Well, it got more interesting
then any possible sex I could have had with her. She blurted out "Jews
are the greatest people on this earth and the worst!" I focused on why
she thought the worst. She went on to explain that her father told her
that Jews are the ones that create the problems in the world through
revolutionary warfare. She thought Napoleon was Jewish. Later she
suggested that Hitler was a secret Jew, because who else would cause
such havoc. And she was sure Leonardo da Vinci was Jewish, "because he
was a genius." The woman was a college graduate!

At a later time frame I relay this to my two Jewish friends who happened
to be in the movie industry. Andy Boxer whose father won the Oscar for
sound engineering for the movie Apocalypse Now. What I decided to relay
was the essence of her thinking, not the fact that she thought every
great thinker was Jewish. Much to my chagrin Andy agreed, that Jews
cause the problems in the world, but expressed it with pride "it's
because we are smarter." My friend Ethan at the time a film student, was
able to see her point of view and later I would discover that he had a
hate and love relationship with his Judaism always saying to me "Jews
are always messing things-up and so many have no class." The problem
with Ethan is that he thought Jackie Gleason, Lucille Ball and what he
thought was the classiest guy in show business Bob Hope were all Jewish.
I corrected him with the first two comics, I didn't have it in me to
correct him about Bob Hope after he just told me he thought most Jews
had no class. At a later date when I told him Bob Hope was as a WASP, he
had an emotional fit.

More recently, I ran into a Rabbi on the street who was visiting his
apartment building he owned. We got talking about New York politics and
was a big time Rudolph Guliani fan. He told me he would always vote for
Italians if any were on the ballot or for any white Gentile conservative
for political office over Jews. He just did not trust Jews to run the
government. "Too liberal" he would say. His views for Blacks was worse,
pointing his finger to his head. Yet he would be boastful and say that
Jews financed all the wars in world history in the last 300 years
including the U. S. Civil War. He went on to explain that if it was not
for Jews since the First World War, the US would not be the super power
in the world today if not for Jewish capital. The repetitiveness of his
discourse was like a mantra saying that Jews are behind the scenes
because "we have the capital and when Jews are in charge they are a
disaster, better to have the Italian's or the WASPs running America.
This country needs a Mussolini!" The whole time he thought I was Jewish!

I remember having a four hour conversation with an Israeli woman who was
a lesbian, and who had the look of a thinner version of Bella Abzug
wearing one of those big floppy hats. She thought two problems plagued
mankind. Technology and the Jews.

She felt Hitler was right, that the Jews cause most of the problems. And
said it with so much joyful glee. And felt Hitler had to have been part
Jewish saying "who else could hate Jews so much but another Jew." She
felt technology should be destroyed for the benefit of mankind.
"Destoyed? Then what about the Jews?" I asked. She would say in essence
that the Jews run the world and they can't be destroyed, they are the
chosen people. God will always protect them.

Many Jews really believe this zany stuff and most are boastful in a
perverse way.

Including another Rabbi I met who thinks God punished the Jews through
Hitler saying that Hitler could not have done what he did without the
intervention of God's hand. My question to this slow talking Rabbi was
why would God want to punish the Jews through Hitler. He said "because
they did not obey the Torah." His prediction, God will punish the people
of the book again with another Holocaust since most Jews are secular.

The difference about Jews that I know and meet that think like Mel
Gibson is that they are not drunk when they express this stuff!

So my statement to the general public at large: Don't tell me you have
not met Jews who don't think like Mel Gibson or worse.
 
I just got in from seeing Mels new movie. I won't spoil it by revealing any details. It did come to my attention via a few buddies in the community that the Maya were not very happy with Mel's casting or story choices. There was concern that he was going to demonize their Calendar, the Maya People, or worse....show them in a light that would flood their country with hippies, ala the "Dances with Dorks" movie.

This was not the case in this film. The Calendar is not featured, mentioned, or shown. Only one scene even hints at any knowledge of astrological events. It's brief.

Apocalypto is a chase movie. You would not want to take the little ones to see it, as it deserves its R rating. It's good as far as a chase movie goes.

As far as accuracy, all I can say is I doubt he consulted a calendar or history book of any kind when he made it. He took the same liberties with Braveheart, so it wasn't surprising.


Gimpy
At least we were spared all the Christ references.
 
The signs crew could make a better movie about the Maya than overviolent Mel.
 
Gimpy said:
This was not the case in this film. The Calendar is not featured, mentioned, or shown. Only one scene even hints at any knowledge of astrological events. It's brief.
Well it is my understanding that Mayans who produced the famous calendar have nothing to do with war faring and bloodthirsty "Mayans" who practiced human sacrifice

I have lost interest for mainstream cinema and Hollywood crap long time ago.
Regarding Mel Gibson as a director I have to say that I am heavily influenced by South Park episode about the Passion.
But even before this little gem I refused to see the movie after I saw the preview and read the reviews. Not to mention the fact that here in my ultra catholic island the flock was literally gathered from the church to go and see the movie. Somehow it felt wrong and perverse that someone should chose to deal with the phenomenon of Christ in that way. Dedicating two hours of the movie to nothing else but suffering, humiliation and degradation of human being. I think Monty Python’s approach in The Life of Brian was way more appropriate :)

and of course after seeing Last temptation of Christ by Scorsese I don’t think there is much more that can be added to this subject in the movies.


Now regarding Apocalypto - I cant wait to see it as I was really touched by some sceenes from the preview, and thanks to anonymity of internet I can admit something here - I am 6ft5 tall man who likes shedding occasional tear thanks to movie magic, and then pretending that something got stuck under my contact lens
In any case I doubt that Gibson can do better job on annihilation of hunter gatherers then the director of Emerald Forest did.
 
Gibson's view of reality is always seen through the filter of his own Fundamentalist Christian's view. A career full of disasters, isn't it? Like Deckart, I've experienced a similar ultra catholic gathering here in my town when the Passion was up on the big screen. The odds came in thinking about Gibson's "cult" movies for big masses ;-)
 
This is the response of a gent named "Jamie Sacred Faces Jewelry" from a Pre Colombian Culture site I'm on, it is well worth reposting here:


Posted: Dec 12, 2006 9:54 PM

Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto is not a mere adventure tale,
it’s not just another excruciatingly brutal portrayal
of apocalyptic violence for its own sake, and the
Village Voice is dead wrong when it says that unlike
Braveheart and The Passion of the Christ, Apocalypto
is “unburdened by nationalist or religious piety,
 
I ve seen Apocalypto last night and I still cant shake off some of the gore images. Now it is official no more Gibson movies for me.
It is a bit of a pity cos no true movie freak can easily dismiss movies like Galipoli and Year of Living Dangerously. These are both very high on my all time favourits list.
Ok he was directed by Peter Weir in both cases, but still he looked like a promising actor then.
twenty years later he has turned director and it is more then obvious now that Mr. Gibson needs professional help.

Wouldnt recommend this move to anyone, not just because everything that was said in the previous post is true especially that this movie is a terrible, terrible lie but also because it is deeply disturbing, it seems the art of glorification of human pain and suffering has been taken to another level by sado-mazochistic Gibson
Indeed delirium tremens work /:
 
I liked Gibson in Maverick and the Lethal Weapons movies... and well that's about it :) Haven't seen the two you mentioned though...
 
well those are classics, pure movie poetry

In A Year of Living Dangerously he plays australian journalist cought in coup de tat events in Indonesia during Sukarno's reign, with Sigourney Weaver as his sweetheart and Linda Hunt as a male dwarf photografer, Vangelis Music


They played this movie recently on TCM


The other one deals with historical events from IWW when thousands of asutralian and NZ soldiers were pointlessly sacrificed in Gallipoli, Turkey

I think as soon as he has reached the holliwod Mel has lost al his talent as an actor
but now I am totally offtopic :(
 
I liked "Braveheart" as well, especially at the beginning when the narrator says:

"I shall tell you of William Wallace. Historians from England will say I am a liar, but history is written by those who have hanged heroes."

In other words, history is written not with the truth in mind, but only with the agenda of the victors in mind.

Don
 
IMO, this movie can only be appreciated after several viewings. Much is missed reading the dialogue even though Gibson did an excellent job in using non-verbal communication.

The character arcs were extreme but believable giving the circumstances. For the indigenous people of the jungle, their entire world and belief systems were uprooted and they had to confront the legends and myths that were handed down to them through the generations in a very short time period.

For us, it would be like the Lizzies coming down today and rounding us up to be taken to the slaughterhouse with no time to even feel sorry for ourselves.

Gibson was a little liberal with mixing the Mayan and Aztecan mythology but in reality, we know very little about either culture especially the Mayans.

My favorite scenes where when the main character was with his son and they were observing the behavior and reactions of a "pet" monkey. They were obviously wondering how much the monkey was capable of understanding about his environment.

This was later juxtaposed with the scene of an "evil" Mayan observing and being fascinated with how the members of a "lesser species" (indigenous jungle tribe) were capable of going through some extreme pain and managing great strength to save a member of their own. It was only curiosity though and he learned nothing from it, at least not from a humanitarian standpoint.

All in all, this was not a movie meant to reflect any historical accuracy. It was just a study of the human condition and how we can be so biased and shortsighted even when the obvious is staring us in the face. Funny that Mel should be the one to explore this so well.
 
I really liked it too, despite the "historical" liberties. Bone crunching! When arriving at "the enemy's" territory & seeing the vibrancy of the place... what no comment on the manipulations of the "high priest" & the chief? (hidden knowledge of celestial whadyamacallits for socio-economic/political control leading to slaughtering of hundreds)
I also found the interaction between the opposing dad & his "fruit loop" son interesting. Total dehumanization. On the commentary Gibson made me laugh with his "colour, by Deluxe" thing! It also had a lot of good technical information especially about the people from near & far portraying these semi-ancient groups. (on the commentary i mean)
 
what no comment on the manipulations of the "high priest" & the chief? (hidden knowledge of celestial whadyamacallits for socio-economic/political control leading to slaughtering of hundreds)

Can you say KNOWLEDGE PROTECTS!?

The masses were manipulated so easily because the "high priests" knew about celestial events and could time them perfectly to trick the people into believing the event as a sign from "God".

Good point.
 
Back
Top Bottom