Apocalypto

Mel Gibson's latest film is out today. From the preliminary reviews it looks like a pretty dark version of the end of Mayan civilization. But one wonders where some of the reviewers start from. For example, Mick LaSalle of the Chronicle has a very negative review. In part he says -

"In any discussion of "Apocalypto," which deals with the twilight of Mayan civilization, a delicate distinction must be made. It would be inappropriate and probably inaccurate for any critic to pronounce on the mental health of a filmmaker based on his movie. Yet no description of "Apocalypto" can even begin, much less be complete, without noting -- say, in a colloquial, nonclinical, anecdotal sort of way -- that it seems like something made by a crazy person. It's unrelenting, a succession of blood-soaked disaster, an artfully designed parade of cruelty that would make the Marquis de Sade get up and say, "Enough already."

LaSalle challenges the premise that Gibson starts with which is that the Mayans collapsed because they were an increasingly decadent. LaSalle argues that the civilization collapsed because of the Spanish intrusion. Any set of historical events happens because of a lot of factors. Indeed, most of the histories I have read on the collapse of the Mayans came from a lot of things.

About 10 years ago, I was the conference secretary in an international conference on economic development in Mexico City. On the Sunday morning of the event we decided to take our group out to the ruins at Teotihuacan. As academics are likely to do when they get into a group (and this was economists and social theorists) they began to discuss the mystery of this legendary city. A good part of the discussion centered on the errors of a civilization that increasingly relied on centralized control of information (the priests held the knowledge of crop cycles) and demonstrations of public-religious authority (the sacrifices increased near the end of that city).

LaSalle is more forgiving when the notion conforms to his political notions. For example he commented " "Borat" is that it's screamingly, hysterically, laugh-through-the-next-joke, laugh-for-the-next-week funny" I guess nude wrestling and constant references to anti-semitism are ok. His review of Sin City, which was criticized for its graphic content said "To remember "Sin City" hours later is to remember from a different part of the brain that remembers conventional movies. It's to remember a comic book come to life."

I am not arguing for Gibson's film or not. In the Passion of Christ the imagery was stark. I am also not sure I am going to see the new one, having spent a lot of time in ancient ruins in Mexico, and learned a lot about the civilizations surrounding those civilizations, I am not sure I need to see those things depicted. But I wonder how LaSalle reacted to movies by Quentin Tarrantino. Gibson seems to have been spiked for his off screen performances rather than his movie-making.

Joe Morgenstern, the WSJ movie critic, had a different take. "Every movie is a journey for the audience as much as for the hero: "Apocalypto" turns out to be a bloody tough slog for all concerned. After the first few impalements, amputations, rapes, eviscerations and beheadings, I thought Mel Gibson's Yucatec-language action adventure, set in the waning days of the Maya civilization, might well be the most obsessively, graphically violent film I had ever seen. By the end I felt sure it was the most obsessively, graphically violent film I'd ever seen, but equally sure that "Apocalypto" is a visionary work with its own wild integrity. And absolutely, positively convinced that seeing it once is enough for one lifetime.He comments However Mr. Gibson may present himself in public these days, he's a singular presence in contemporary American films; no one else is making movies like "Apocalypto" or "The Passion of the Christ," let alone paying for them out of personal bank accounts. Yet he's also rooted in the Hollywood tradition of flamboyant obsessive-compulsives -- Griffith, Von Stroheim, De Mille -- who combined the power of primitivist themes with all the razzle-dazzle technique at their command."

A reviewer's job is to tell us about the movie not to impress us with his political beliefs. Morgenstern consistently does that. I do not always agree with his conclusions but he does an excellent job in explaining the technical, cinematic and dramatic aspects which he has used to make a judgement. I look forward to Fridays to see what he has said about the movie(s) of the week. LaSalle unfortunately is a critic who thinks reviewing movies is his second job. Perhaps he would be better at his first, if he stuck to it.