skull_bearer | (no subject)

You do the maths:

1- Skull Bearer adores Latin and South American cultures, mostly due to her dad being equally mad about them and insanity running in the family.

2- Skull Bearer loves good historical stories.

3- Skull Bearer detests bad historical stories.

4- Skull Bearer loathes reich-wing Christians.

Thus, Skull Bearer wishes a slow and agonising death on Mel Gibson, or at least a state of total bankrupsy that would make him unable to churn out any more disgusting trash before she loses control of her insides and throws up over her computer. I simply cannot describe how much I hate Apocalypto. I didn't like Passion of the Christ (for all that I didn't go to see it) but hey, it was a christian film, let them evicerate their saviour however they like. I'm sure he really regrets dying for them now. But Apocalypto...

I like the Aztecs (I'll explain why later), I wrote a very nice short story with an Aztec priest as the main character. The main challenge was to make him sympathetic, and I think I succeeded very well.
I love the Incas, they are even better than the Aztecs (no human bloodbaths) and just an incredibly cool bunch of people. Some people say they weren't very advanced since they didn't have the wheel. I think they did invent it at some point, then it rolled of the side of the mountain and crashed in the valley below, and they all looked at each other and shook their heads in unison. Wheels aren't much use when you live in the Andes. Their writing was immensly cool though, since we still haven't been able to crack that code.
But I really adore the Mayans, who are mysterious and strange and vanished so strangely. They had such a fascinating civilisation and were so advanced it was really amazing. I love their prophecies and their legends, and all the mysteries they left in their wake (my favourite being the tale of the crystal skulls, particularly one specific one which is so complex people couldn't even duplicate it today).

So... Yeah, Apocalypto. Stamp on everything I love and turn my favourite civilisation into a mass of degenerate bloodthirsty savages. Who were killed by the conquistadors. Who in real life didn't arrive until long afterwards (Gibson, repeat after me: M-A-Y-A-N. A-Z-T-E-C. See the difference?) .
Like the Incas, the Mayans didn't preform mass human sacrifice. If they did it at all (which is debatable, see below) the numbers were very small and select, and certainly didn't number among the populace. Also, they would probably not have been suprised at a solar eclipse, seeing as they had the best astrological calander in the world! Forget stonehenge, this was amazing. And how do I know this? I... Asked an expert and read some books. And I'm not planning to make a film about it! I suppose you could call it poetic license, but I'm of the opinion that poetic license shouldn't extend to history (U571, I'm looking at you). Give them a bit more credit and call them the Aztecs, then fine, I wouldn't see it then either, but I would be slightly less pissed off.

Now, the thing with human sacrifice is that while we can be fairly sure those after the Mayans (like the Toltecs) practised it, there isn't much evidence that the Mayans did it themselves, and quite a lot that the later civilisations got it for somewhere else. They did practice blood sacrifice, but I see some significant differences between cutting yourself on holy days and carving up human beings daily.
The Aztecs are an interesting case too. Since the conquisators destroyed most of their historical documents, the evidence is based on reports for the conquistadors (who would have excellent reasons to paint the Aztecs as black as possible, and who have already been found to be exaggerating before) and their paintings and statues. The latter may be seen as pretty good proof, to which I pose this question: If, in a thousand years, someone were to find the remains of christian churches- knowing nothing about the religion- would they look at them in disgust and spit "Well, they were really into crucifixion."
I'm not saying they didn't commit human sacrifice- no smoke without fire- just that we really shouldn't believe everything Cortez said.

Yep, I do feel better.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I hate it when films wilfully get the facts wrong too. Braveheart, grrrr) But then, I've no intention of ever seeing a film that Mel Gibson has anything to do with again. I saw the trailers for Apocalypto and thought it looked pretty suspect, because as you say, ane fule kno that the Mayans didn't do human sacrifice.

I looked some things up and realised that not only is this film bad, it's also dangerous. There are still Mayans around, and they've just weathered a recent attempt to exterminate them (half a million died). What sort of sick bastard shoots a racist film just after something like that?

Hmm, yeah, he's pathetic all right. Actually, I didn't realize it was about the Mayans. From what I saw of the trailer, I thought it was the Aztecs the movie was about. :^\ He is a stupid bastard, isn't he? Ah, well.

It would make sense if it was the Aztecs, not to mention it wouldn't have the same destructive consequences for the real Mayan people, who had been struggling through so much shit it's not even remotely amusing. That film is fucking racist.

Mel loses for the reich-wing Christian bit. That's most of what I remember about him. The guy in Mad Max and Braveheart with the jacket and the painted face. And I recall hearing about the number of kids he had, and nearly having a heart attack. *snort*

You know what I like about movies like those, you know, the "historic" ones? The COSTUMES. They are usually pretty and shiny, and some movies catch the atmosphere of the time, so I just like looking at them and ignoring the other parts of the movie. :3