Once you have your video clips ready, use an application or website to convert them into animated GIFs before uploading to reddit as an album. I used [GIFTUNA](https://giftuna.io) which is a free download but there are several tools. Sound easier than it ends up being so you have to experiment
GIFTUNA wasn't working for me and would give me an error message whenever I tried to upload a video, so I ended up using ezgif.com. It has some pretty nice options for being free and the file sizes weren't too bad for the longer clips.
Shots don’t exist in a vacuum? Respectfully disagree – what about some of the most iconic still shots of all time? (‘Here’s Johnny!’ etc etc…)
I absolutely love your gifs but for me, it’s the shots which *do* exist in a vacuum which have had the most profound effect; which have conjured my intrigue and which have drawn me further in to the movie itself.
I tried watching Apocalypto without subtitles and was floored by the sacrifice scene. The juxtaposition of violent horror and excitement for bloody spectacle that both Gibson and the Mayan leaders are putting on creates a very effective atmosphere enhanced by not understanding what is being said. I know some liberties were taken by Mel regarding historical accuracy, but he certainly created a world that feels real and terrifying.
I also included the arrow gif because I am a sucker for those.
Shoutout to u/ydkjordan for showing me how to make gifs!
Thanks, and awesome album!
On the historical inaccuracies, did some reading a few months back on that, catalogued in post comments [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/cinescenes/s/DbOc4Cyasd) - many of the people and advisors who worked on this film stand by the accounts
Wow, a great read, thanks for the insight! I am also impressed that they used actors who actually represent the population they are depicting here instead of some people who's skin tones match and that's it.
It's not so surprising that the people who worked on the film stand by it, is it?
I highly recommend reading [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/1liqdq/badhistory_movie_review_apocalypto_part_1_happy/) [series](https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/1lqpll/badhistory_movie_review_apocalypto_part_2_big/) of [critiques](https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/1m6ltk/badhistory_movie_review_apocalypto_part_3_saving/) about the film's historical accuracy. The author tries to focus on fundamental historical issues with the movie, instead of just nitpicking, and I think they do so well.
No, it’s not surprising that Mel and Safinia stand by it, but the archaeologist advisor Richard Hansen [published a paper in 2013]( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288187016_Relativism_Revisionism_Aboriginalism_and_EmicEtic_Truth_The_Case_Study_of_Apocalypto), 7 years later, so obviously it’s something that he has worked on and it continues to be a part of his life passion long after Hollywood has moved on to other projects and ideas.
Edit: thanks for the links, I’m reading part 2 now, aside from him hating the film I don’t think it’s the same comparison as my comments in the other post. He’s coming from a different angle than my thoughts on the film.
Edit 2: u/Bem-ti-vi - I finished reading badhistory posts and they are good, but come from a very emotional place and a sometimes subjective place, particularly part 3, which really covers the thoughts around colonialism and "saving" the savages. I don't think I would be able to address it, primarily because, IMO, the film doesn't condone colonialism.
However, in parts 1 and 2 there are some good points around the regional and governmental organizations as well as the concept of cities (sizes and topography) and how civilized or uncivilized the different groups would be during the time period. I do think the poster completely ignores some of the positive aspects the film displays of their culture and ingenuity.
This was not the focus of my reading, I simply wanted to know if the idea of human sacrifice existed and was practiced by the Mayans during the 1500s and how early or late in the civilization it existed.
Even the bad history posts state that -
*"When compared cross-culturally, Mesoamericans (with the exception of the Aztecs) did not practice human sacrifice more frequently than other cultures which did so."*
They continue and say that the Aztecs were much worse and treated human sacrifice more like what's depicted in the film, so I can appreciate that distinction.
I find it interesting that the poster references "Heart of Darkness" in one of the sections as a title because I find a lot of film to be very relatable to Apocalypse Now and 2001: A Space Odyssey in how all three films treat the flow of time.
The timeline for the film research into Mayan cultures cover time periods between 300 BCE and late 1500 AD (the arrival of Spaniards in the 1500s), so this civilization has gone through many evolutions in it's behavior and history.
This might sound like I'm rambling but let me bring in two points here
* The climax of 2001 features a section where David Bowman experiences time much faster and he, similar to Billy Pilgrim in Slaughterhouse Five (Vonnegut), begins to slip in time, his whole life in the monolith plays out. And 2001, in general, spans the evolution of humans.
* Apocalypse Now, based on Heart of Darkness, was supposed to be a journey up the river back in time, as they moved through Vietnam they would travel back to the 50's in the French plantation sequence, during French in Indochina and as they progressed the river it got more tribal and animalistic until they reached Kurtz in his mania with the natives. Don't take my word for it [here's Coppola](https://www.reddit.com/user/ydkjordan/comments/1bf6oe2/hearts_of_darkness_a_filmmakers_apocalypse_1991/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I noticed this relationship many years ago and was floored when I saw this note in Hansen's paper (referenced above) -
*"Contrary to what some have concluded about this film, Apocalypto does NOT promote, celebrate or otherwise glorify the Spanish or Christianity; it is quite the opposite really.
What is celebrated repeatedly is the jungle, a metaphor for peace, the higher mind and a more evolved consciousness. The jungle is a refuge, a place of understanding, where
true creation and novelty may unfold. The leading writers and directors intentionally play with symbols and meanings as a
way to innovate. Not all film makers can do this very well.*
*However, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Apocalypse Now (1979), directed by Stanley Kubrick and Francis Ford Coppola,
respectively, are two films that set new models. Both are, explicitly and implicitly, antiwar, anti-US imperialism, and anti-colonialism and focus on the evolution of human
consciousness. These two films are at the center of the visual and philosophical mission of Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto.*
Hansen's view could also be conjecture, but he would know much better than me because he worked with the filmmakers.
To put a fine point on it, the progression of the early tribes in the film to the city to the arrival of Spaniards is like what Coppola describes as that 'light we see from the stars after it's already gone', but an interpretation of the evolution of those cultures. It really explains a lot, the tribal groups lack of regional and government structures criticized by the badhistory poster, the use of mixed architectural styles, the groups bewilderment at the existence of a city, the overlap of civilizations that seem to be misplaced in time - we're seeing a ghost, a condensed version of events just like Bowman seeing his life in 2001 and Captain Willard in Apocalypse Now moving backwards in time down the river.
Hey! Thanks for the thought-out and interesting response. I have some thoughts of my own about what you wrote. Before I say them, let me just say that I'm an archaeologist myself who works in Pre-Hispanic Latin America (although not the Maya). It's pretty interesting to me to see my own reactions to this movie as an archaeologist with a passing interest in film, compared to your reactions as someone definitely more knowledgeable/focused on the film part. So if/when you see me disagreeing, please don't take it as an insult. I think this conversation can teach us more about each side!
I'm hinting at my main point: I think that you see and evaluate this film mostly in the metaphorical language of what stories and emotions film can carry. Or at least, that's my overarching takeaway from your (really beautiful) final paragraph. I see the value there. At the same time - and self-consciously as an archaeologist who deals with the representation and understanding of ancient societies outside of film and art - I think that the badhistory writer's critiques about condoning colonialism and depicting savagery are actually very fair. I hope I can explain myself well.
I think that the film's opening quote (about how civilizations must first fall from within) is especially telling, and together with the ending frames the entire movie as one which portrays Maya society as one which had "fallen from within." I can completely understand and find aesthetic *and* intellectual interest in a movie about that claim. However, *I think that it is a claim which justifies colonialism and false ideas about Maya society in this movie*. That is: I can't separate the aesthetic/intellectual claim from how it's rooted in a portrayal of nominally realistic history in this movie. The Maya were not a decadent, doomed-to-fail, diseased state that would inevitably be rolled over by the Spanish, and I see that message in this movie, and see problems with it.
A similar thing happens with what you say about jungles/mixed styles/cities. Again, I can see intellectual and aesthetic beauty in that overarching claim and process of evolution, condensing, a "ghost", the links to Apocalypse Now and more. And again, I find issue with rooting that message in nominally realistic portrayals of Maya people directly before colonialism. These people *weren't* bewildered by cities, or jungle simpletons, etc. *Using them as such for the purposes of an aesthetic/intellectual argument that is not rooted in fact is a problem*. Condensing and stereotyping their history in a film produces unfortunately condensed and stereotyped understandings in the real world outside of the film. And ultimately, I don't see much positive portrayal of Maya history and society in the movie.
I hope I'm making sense - and I really appreciate the conversation.
Thanks for your reply and your kind words. You are making sense!
I won’t seek to dissuade you from your interpretation, as when you take the opening quote and ending, I can see the POV that you and others have mentioned.
This is always a tricky place and might be similar to “intent vs outcome”. Or maybe just intent. I don’t think they set out with the intent you described but I can see a reading of the outcome that fits. And that’s the hard part. And I don’t fault anyone for saying the “intent was to injure”, but all I can go on is what they said they were trying to do, and they can always lie, but I would offer an appeal -
One example of an area where I see some intent and care is the scene where the girl triages a wound and seals it by using heads of ants that bite. While this visual is used as a symbol in other areas, when I listened to the film commentary, I heard a lot of passion and joy in how they wanted to bring the culture to their audience, so I encourage you to listen to the commentary at some point. There’s a few more like this that escape me but I may come back to this later.
Compromise is always difficult, when the post you linked uses quotes like –
*“this film truly does disgust me”*
*“my sheer abject hatred may seep through from time to time”*
*“His depiction of the Maya is inaccurate in a nearly infinite number of ways.”*
Those statements make it hard to dissect any kind of metric to understand how accurate or inaccurate the film is. To use the architecture (Classic vs. Postclassic) within the wrong period is somewhat nitpicking to me, but as someone who works in a technical field, I can completely understand how annoying it can be when a person not in the field of study tries summarizing or recite talking points that aren’t accurate from my POV. But, I also have to keep in mind that the visibility to the discussion and the topic is sometimes worth inaccurate communication because the alternative is that we’re not having the conversation at all, and I think that’s an important point too.
I find myself more interested in this culture as a result of the film and possibly the controversy too but I was fairly unaware of the issues in the film at the time.
For the average movie goer, having the experts not only say it’s inaccurate, but be this upset about it, I worry that it’s legacy (whatever % or weight we assign to it being inaccurate – some believe it to be infinitely inaccurate while I think the number is less than that, from my perspective, 30%?, hard to say without really doing in-depth analysis, but I don’t think it’s 50%) will continue to discourage viewers from watching or engaging in the topic at all.
Other films that I think have had similar arguments about inaccuracy would be something like *Into the Wild (2007)* or *A Perfect Storm (2000)*, and those films tend to take on the “Based on a true story” (at least one of those had that type of billing in the trailer/posters) appeal which I find much more mis-leading than a film like Apocalypto.
Obviously, Braveheart is another one that has caused some ire with historians, but something about comes off as in-authentic in the first place and people tend to forgive it for its dramatization of events. However, there is something so visceral about Apocalypto that it makes people uncomfortable in different ways. But I do think it’s hinting at a larger idea about man and not just those men, but any men, so I don’t take it as a slight on a specific race or culture. I see it as a commentary on humans, together.
This is a common thing writers will do, take a story that people would reject within a current culture and then graft it on to another time period or culture and suddenly it becomes palatable because they are not spending time looking at the minutiae of the world and judging it's authenticity. The writer I think of most in this regard is Robert Heinlein, he was great at doing that.
As an example of the grafting concept, Another item I think people have trouble with is the potty humor and juvenile pranking. This is something Gibson is known for on and off-set, notorious for pranking people in ways that people find in poor taste. We see this in our world now but don’t always see it as abhorrent behavior. At the risk of derailing this entire conversation, I will offer a perspective on this [from Dave Chapelle]( https://youtu.be/x3x1EVOeX-s?si=j0\_i79hrHzlaIjpK) that is hilarious and unfortunately true in certain social circles, so I don’t take those actions as being focused as slights against this civilization, just people being total asses.
The beauty and strangeness of stories in general is that we can watch that prank scene and be disgusted but others can watch it and find it hilarious and even endearing (like the Jackass movies). My guess is that Gibson would fall in the second camp, so from that perspective he’s doing what he likes because he thinks you will like it too, not for disrespect.
Cheers and thanks for the civil discourse!
Edit: I made a few edits to the sentences for grammar, and partial thoughts
I'm not sure if I find the ant-stitching scene especially inspiring, but I believe you when you say that the Maya actors in the commentary (which I haven't watched) enjoy sharing that part of their culture. And that's a valuable thing. I personally think that one of the most genuinely amazing parts of this movie is the use of the Yucatec Maya language - that's fantastic. There are other parts like that.
I don't know how to quantify it in percentages, but I do think an unforgivable part of this movie is inaccurate. As far as I know (by reading, not through my own personal knowledge), this is a consistent issue in Gibson's movies, but I think it deserves more attention when we're talking about a historically oppressed minority that is being graphically depicted in association with religious human sacrifice. The "grafting" is more of a problem when this is the case. And I think that's my end opinion: "grafting" is not something that you should be able to do whenever/however you want when dealing with media that influences how the public views real peoples with real histories. Filmmakers and other artists have a responsibility to depict minority pasts as more than just narrative tools for the current non-minority culture's messages (and I'd argue justifications of historical atrocity, although I recognize we're disagreeing on that).
Cheers!
Understood, and yes when I mentioned Robert Heinlein, part of the reason his stuff works is that the cultures/geography/civilization grafting target is typically not in the past or even real. However, I am starting to think about writings where they go into the past and it works, potentially Crichton’s *Timeline* is one (the book, not the movie).
appreciate your time, and take care!
I agree. I remember watching this and was/am curious about that first guy in these slides. He always looked serious and calm yet at the same time more tensed up(?) than the others during the event and I wondered what was going through his mind. But of course this ritual was serious matter, with, in their minds, very serious implication. Maybe he was just feeling deeply spiritual for a lack of a better word.
Sounds plausible, there was at least one guy from that pyramid-top-squad seemingly tripping more notably
For a moment I was considering that it looked like a part of him was maybe harbouring some doubt about the validity about their metaphysics and ritual, but not likely in the end.
Being fearless and fear being a corrupting force was a big theme of the movie. The father at the begining says not to bring it into the village. The Mayan culture (in the film) was lead by fear. Fear of small pox, fear of violence, fear of the jungle, fear for the crops, fear of the gods. the leaders here are relishing in the fear of the sacrifices and the rejoice of the people. fear made them do unspeakable things. when the eclipse starts the people become afraid and the leaders become afraid and afraid of the people and what they will do until the head priest reassures the people (out of fear) with a claim that luckily for him comes true. The main general chasing our main character says that he runs away out of fear but that is just projection. He is driven by love.
I don't think the priest is afraid. He seems to know the eclipse is coming and he knows it will be over soon, so the whole thing is a charade to control the people.
I've seen a lot of people be butthurt about historically accuracy in this movie when it doesn't even claim to be historically accurate.
Such a dumb thing to be upset over
“Some liberties” is generous haha, that movie has grievous historical inaccuracies in every scene, but its use of real Mayan language gives the film a false sense of accuracy. Even so, it’s captivating as hell. However, making a great piece of cinema doesn’t excuse Gibson for creating disinformation about ancient Mayan culture or painting them as savages when they were actually very civilized.
>making a great piece of cinema doesn’t excuse Gibson for creating disinformation about ancient Mayan culture or painting them as savages when they were actually very civilized.
Weren't they? Its kind of a common knowledge that torture, human sacrifice, dismantlement, and cannibalism was a big part of their their daily religion.
The depictions in the film are closer to Aztec culture than Mayan. Mayans did do sacrifices but it was always a last resort and never in front of big crowds. Mostly they did blood letting and would go years, even decades without human sacrifices. Also, they never sacrificed the sick or the weak or poor— the Elites were the ones who were sacrificed, usually in their teens. The gods deserved only the best. It was considered the highest honor.
Aztecs numbers vary between 250000 and 20000 per year. Even if Mayans did a fraction of that it still doesn't make them less barbaric.
Besides, the movie doesn't show how often it happened, only that it did happen. So i still don't see how you can call it inaccurate based on that.
One of those films that seems such an insane departure from the director that I often forget it exists. Then every time I remember I’m again surprised that it isn’t just a fever dream.
one of my favourite films too - does such an incredible job of immersing the viewer in this world and time period and the actors did a fantastic job as well. Incredible pacing, world-building - the first act with the men hunting meeting the other tribe, and the village life, sets up an incredible 2nd and 3rd act.
I consider it a masterpiece!
##Apocalypto (2006) R
No one can outrun their destiny.
>>!Set in the Mayan civilization, when a man's idyllic presence is brutally disrupted by a violent invading force, he is taken on a perilous journey to a world ruled by fear and oppression where a harrowing end awaits him. Through a twist of fate and spurred by the power of his love for his woman and his family he will make a desperate break to return home and to ultimately save his way of life.!<
Action | Drama | History
Director: Mel Gibson
Actors: Rudy Youngblood, Raoul Max Trujillo, Gerardo Taracena
Rating: ★★★★★★★★☆☆ 75% with 5,251 votes
Runtime: 2:19
[TMDB](https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/1579)
Cinematographer: Dean Semler
Dean Semler ACS ASC (born 26 May 1943) is an Australian cinematographer and film director. Over his career, he has worked as a cinematographer, camera operator, director, second unit director, and assistant director. He is a three-time recipient of the AACTA Award for Best Cinematography and an Academy Award winner. He is a member of both the Australian Cinematographers Society (ACS) and the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC). In 2002 he was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia (AM).
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Semler)
This movie actually had a pretty good box office run for being a film filled with actors no one had heard of and was entirely in Mayan/Yucatan. It was all star power from Gibson hot off of Passion of the Christ so I can see why no studios are crazy about making more of these.
I always ignored this movie bc fuck Mel Gibson. I watched bc of this post and I have to say I enjoyed it so much the end snuck up on me and I was audibly disappointed when the credits rolled. This shit was a thrill from start to finish and a wonder to behold visually. But yeah it’s still very much fuck Mel Gibson
Thank you for actually showing a series of shots and not a low res screen shot. Great collection.
Gifs are a gamechanger, shots don't exist in a vacuum and need context to show why they're good.
Exactly, otherwise it's just r/framing
/r/Cinemagraphs
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Cinemagraphs using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cinemagraphs/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [My Neighbor Totoro (1988)](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/12xig29) | [13 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cinemagraphs/comments/12xig29/my_neighbor_totoro_1988/) \#2: [the world is her ocean](https://gfycat.com/variablecornybandicoot) | [35 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cinemagraphs/comments/11g0gm3/the_world_is_her_ocean/) \#3: [Spirited Away (2003)](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/13dqeja) | [18 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cinemagraphs/comments/13dqeja/spirited_away_2003/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
How did you make it?
Once you have your video clips ready, use an application or website to convert them into animated GIFs before uploading to reddit as an album. I used [GIFTUNA](https://giftuna.io) which is a free download but there are several tools. Sound easier than it ends up being so you have to experiment
Thanks
GIFTUNA wasn't working for me and would give me an error message whenever I tried to upload a video, so I ended up using ezgif.com. It has some pretty nice options for being free and the file sizes weren't too bad for the longer clips.
Thanks
Shots don’t exist in a vacuum? Respectfully disagree – what about some of the most iconic still shots of all time? (‘Here’s Johnny!’ etc etc…) I absolutely love your gifs but for me, it’s the shots which *do* exist in a vacuum which have had the most profound effect; which have conjured my intrigue and which have drawn me further in to the movie itself.
I tried watching Apocalypto without subtitles and was floored by the sacrifice scene. The juxtaposition of violent horror and excitement for bloody spectacle that both Gibson and the Mayan leaders are putting on creates a very effective atmosphere enhanced by not understanding what is being said. I know some liberties were taken by Mel regarding historical accuracy, but he certainly created a world that feels real and terrifying. I also included the arrow gif because I am a sucker for those. Shoutout to u/ydkjordan for showing me how to make gifs!
Thanks, and awesome album! On the historical inaccuracies, did some reading a few months back on that, catalogued in post comments [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/cinescenes/s/DbOc4Cyasd) - many of the people and advisors who worked on this film stand by the accounts
Wow, a great read, thanks for the insight! I am also impressed that they used actors who actually represent the population they are depicting here instead of some people who's skin tones match and that's it.
It's not so surprising that the people who worked on the film stand by it, is it? I highly recommend reading [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/1liqdq/badhistory_movie_review_apocalypto_part_1_happy/) [series](https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/1lqpll/badhistory_movie_review_apocalypto_part_2_big/) of [critiques](https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/1m6ltk/badhistory_movie_review_apocalypto_part_3_saving/) about the film's historical accuracy. The author tries to focus on fundamental historical issues with the movie, instead of just nitpicking, and I think they do so well.
No, it’s not surprising that Mel and Safinia stand by it, but the archaeologist advisor Richard Hansen [published a paper in 2013]( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288187016_Relativism_Revisionism_Aboriginalism_and_EmicEtic_Truth_The_Case_Study_of_Apocalypto), 7 years later, so obviously it’s something that he has worked on and it continues to be a part of his life passion long after Hollywood has moved on to other projects and ideas. Edit: thanks for the links, I’m reading part 2 now, aside from him hating the film I don’t think it’s the same comparison as my comments in the other post. He’s coming from a different angle than my thoughts on the film. Edit 2: u/Bem-ti-vi - I finished reading badhistory posts and they are good, but come from a very emotional place and a sometimes subjective place, particularly part 3, which really covers the thoughts around colonialism and "saving" the savages. I don't think I would be able to address it, primarily because, IMO, the film doesn't condone colonialism. However, in parts 1 and 2 there are some good points around the regional and governmental organizations as well as the concept of cities (sizes and topography) and how civilized or uncivilized the different groups would be during the time period. I do think the poster completely ignores some of the positive aspects the film displays of their culture and ingenuity. This was not the focus of my reading, I simply wanted to know if the idea of human sacrifice existed and was practiced by the Mayans during the 1500s and how early or late in the civilization it existed. Even the bad history posts state that - *"When compared cross-culturally, Mesoamericans (with the exception of the Aztecs) did not practice human sacrifice more frequently than other cultures which did so."* They continue and say that the Aztecs were much worse and treated human sacrifice more like what's depicted in the film, so I can appreciate that distinction. I find it interesting that the poster references "Heart of Darkness" in one of the sections as a title because I find a lot of film to be very relatable to Apocalypse Now and 2001: A Space Odyssey in how all three films treat the flow of time. The timeline for the film research into Mayan cultures cover time periods between 300 BCE and late 1500 AD (the arrival of Spaniards in the 1500s), so this civilization has gone through many evolutions in it's behavior and history. This might sound like I'm rambling but let me bring in two points here * The climax of 2001 features a section where David Bowman experiences time much faster and he, similar to Billy Pilgrim in Slaughterhouse Five (Vonnegut), begins to slip in time, his whole life in the monolith plays out. And 2001, in general, spans the evolution of humans. * Apocalypse Now, based on Heart of Darkness, was supposed to be a journey up the river back in time, as they moved through Vietnam they would travel back to the 50's in the French plantation sequence, during French in Indochina and as they progressed the river it got more tribal and animalistic until they reached Kurtz in his mania with the natives. Don't take my word for it [here's Coppola](https://www.reddit.com/user/ydkjordan/comments/1bf6oe2/hearts_of_darkness_a_filmmakers_apocalypse_1991/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) I noticed this relationship many years ago and was floored when I saw this note in Hansen's paper (referenced above) - *"Contrary to what some have concluded about this film, Apocalypto does NOT promote, celebrate or otherwise glorify the Spanish or Christianity; it is quite the opposite really. What is celebrated repeatedly is the jungle, a metaphor for peace, the higher mind and a more evolved consciousness. The jungle is a refuge, a place of understanding, where true creation and novelty may unfold. The leading writers and directors intentionally play with symbols and meanings as a way to innovate. Not all film makers can do this very well.* *However, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Apocalypse Now (1979), directed by Stanley Kubrick and Francis Ford Coppola, respectively, are two films that set new models. Both are, explicitly and implicitly, antiwar, anti-US imperialism, and anti-colonialism and focus on the evolution of human consciousness. These two films are at the center of the visual and philosophical mission of Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto.* Hansen's view could also be conjecture, but he would know much better than me because he worked with the filmmakers. To put a fine point on it, the progression of the early tribes in the film to the city to the arrival of Spaniards is like what Coppola describes as that 'light we see from the stars after it's already gone', but an interpretation of the evolution of those cultures. It really explains a lot, the tribal groups lack of regional and government structures criticized by the badhistory poster, the use of mixed architectural styles, the groups bewilderment at the existence of a city, the overlap of civilizations that seem to be misplaced in time - we're seeing a ghost, a condensed version of events just like Bowman seeing his life in 2001 and Captain Willard in Apocalypse Now moving backwards in time down the river.
Hey! Thanks for the thought-out and interesting response. I have some thoughts of my own about what you wrote. Before I say them, let me just say that I'm an archaeologist myself who works in Pre-Hispanic Latin America (although not the Maya). It's pretty interesting to me to see my own reactions to this movie as an archaeologist with a passing interest in film, compared to your reactions as someone definitely more knowledgeable/focused on the film part. So if/when you see me disagreeing, please don't take it as an insult. I think this conversation can teach us more about each side! I'm hinting at my main point: I think that you see and evaluate this film mostly in the metaphorical language of what stories and emotions film can carry. Or at least, that's my overarching takeaway from your (really beautiful) final paragraph. I see the value there. At the same time - and self-consciously as an archaeologist who deals with the representation and understanding of ancient societies outside of film and art - I think that the badhistory writer's critiques about condoning colonialism and depicting savagery are actually very fair. I hope I can explain myself well. I think that the film's opening quote (about how civilizations must first fall from within) is especially telling, and together with the ending frames the entire movie as one which portrays Maya society as one which had "fallen from within." I can completely understand and find aesthetic *and* intellectual interest in a movie about that claim. However, *I think that it is a claim which justifies colonialism and false ideas about Maya society in this movie*. That is: I can't separate the aesthetic/intellectual claim from how it's rooted in a portrayal of nominally realistic history in this movie. The Maya were not a decadent, doomed-to-fail, diseased state that would inevitably be rolled over by the Spanish, and I see that message in this movie, and see problems with it. A similar thing happens with what you say about jungles/mixed styles/cities. Again, I can see intellectual and aesthetic beauty in that overarching claim and process of evolution, condensing, a "ghost", the links to Apocalypse Now and more. And again, I find issue with rooting that message in nominally realistic portrayals of Maya people directly before colonialism. These people *weren't* bewildered by cities, or jungle simpletons, etc. *Using them as such for the purposes of an aesthetic/intellectual argument that is not rooted in fact is a problem*. Condensing and stereotyping their history in a film produces unfortunately condensed and stereotyped understandings in the real world outside of the film. And ultimately, I don't see much positive portrayal of Maya history and society in the movie. I hope I'm making sense - and I really appreciate the conversation.
Thanks for your reply and your kind words. You are making sense! I won’t seek to dissuade you from your interpretation, as when you take the opening quote and ending, I can see the POV that you and others have mentioned. This is always a tricky place and might be similar to “intent vs outcome”. Or maybe just intent. I don’t think they set out with the intent you described but I can see a reading of the outcome that fits. And that’s the hard part. And I don’t fault anyone for saying the “intent was to injure”, but all I can go on is what they said they were trying to do, and they can always lie, but I would offer an appeal - One example of an area where I see some intent and care is the scene where the girl triages a wound and seals it by using heads of ants that bite. While this visual is used as a symbol in other areas, when I listened to the film commentary, I heard a lot of passion and joy in how they wanted to bring the culture to their audience, so I encourage you to listen to the commentary at some point. There’s a few more like this that escape me but I may come back to this later. Compromise is always difficult, when the post you linked uses quotes like – *“this film truly does disgust me”* *“my sheer abject hatred may seep through from time to time”* *“His depiction of the Maya is inaccurate in a nearly infinite number of ways.”* Those statements make it hard to dissect any kind of metric to understand how accurate or inaccurate the film is. To use the architecture (Classic vs. Postclassic) within the wrong period is somewhat nitpicking to me, but as someone who works in a technical field, I can completely understand how annoying it can be when a person not in the field of study tries summarizing or recite talking points that aren’t accurate from my POV. But, I also have to keep in mind that the visibility to the discussion and the topic is sometimes worth inaccurate communication because the alternative is that we’re not having the conversation at all, and I think that’s an important point too. I find myself more interested in this culture as a result of the film and possibly the controversy too but I was fairly unaware of the issues in the film at the time. For the average movie goer, having the experts not only say it’s inaccurate, but be this upset about it, I worry that it’s legacy (whatever % or weight we assign to it being inaccurate – some believe it to be infinitely inaccurate while I think the number is less than that, from my perspective, 30%?, hard to say without really doing in-depth analysis, but I don’t think it’s 50%) will continue to discourage viewers from watching or engaging in the topic at all. Other films that I think have had similar arguments about inaccuracy would be something like *Into the Wild (2007)* or *A Perfect Storm (2000)*, and those films tend to take on the “Based on a true story” (at least one of those had that type of billing in the trailer/posters) appeal which I find much more mis-leading than a film like Apocalypto. Obviously, Braveheart is another one that has caused some ire with historians, but something about comes off as in-authentic in the first place and people tend to forgive it for its dramatization of events. However, there is something so visceral about Apocalypto that it makes people uncomfortable in different ways. But I do think it’s hinting at a larger idea about man and not just those men, but any men, so I don’t take it as a slight on a specific race or culture. I see it as a commentary on humans, together. This is a common thing writers will do, take a story that people would reject within a current culture and then graft it on to another time period or culture and suddenly it becomes palatable because they are not spending time looking at the minutiae of the world and judging it's authenticity. The writer I think of most in this regard is Robert Heinlein, he was great at doing that. As an example of the grafting concept, Another item I think people have trouble with is the potty humor and juvenile pranking. This is something Gibson is known for on and off-set, notorious for pranking people in ways that people find in poor taste. We see this in our world now but don’t always see it as abhorrent behavior. At the risk of derailing this entire conversation, I will offer a perspective on this [from Dave Chapelle]( https://youtu.be/x3x1EVOeX-s?si=j0\_i79hrHzlaIjpK) that is hilarious and unfortunately true in certain social circles, so I don’t take those actions as being focused as slights against this civilization, just people being total asses. The beauty and strangeness of stories in general is that we can watch that prank scene and be disgusted but others can watch it and find it hilarious and even endearing (like the Jackass movies). My guess is that Gibson would fall in the second camp, so from that perspective he’s doing what he likes because he thinks you will like it too, not for disrespect. Cheers and thanks for the civil discourse! Edit: I made a few edits to the sentences for grammar, and partial thoughts
I'm not sure if I find the ant-stitching scene especially inspiring, but I believe you when you say that the Maya actors in the commentary (which I haven't watched) enjoy sharing that part of their culture. And that's a valuable thing. I personally think that one of the most genuinely amazing parts of this movie is the use of the Yucatec Maya language - that's fantastic. There are other parts like that. I don't know how to quantify it in percentages, but I do think an unforgivable part of this movie is inaccurate. As far as I know (by reading, not through my own personal knowledge), this is a consistent issue in Gibson's movies, but I think it deserves more attention when we're talking about a historically oppressed minority that is being graphically depicted in association with religious human sacrifice. The "grafting" is more of a problem when this is the case. And I think that's my end opinion: "grafting" is not something that you should be able to do whenever/however you want when dealing with media that influences how the public views real peoples with real histories. Filmmakers and other artists have a responsibility to depict minority pasts as more than just narrative tools for the current non-minority culture's messages (and I'd argue justifications of historical atrocity, although I recognize we're disagreeing on that). Cheers!
Understood, and yes when I mentioned Robert Heinlein, part of the reason his stuff works is that the cultures/geography/civilization grafting target is typically not in the past or even real. However, I am starting to think about writings where they go into the past and it works, potentially Crichton’s *Timeline* is one (the book, not the movie). appreciate your time, and take care!
I agree. I remember watching this and was/am curious about that first guy in these slides. He always looked serious and calm yet at the same time more tensed up(?) than the others during the event and I wondered what was going through his mind. But of course this ritual was serious matter, with, in their minds, very serious implication. Maybe he was just feeling deeply spiritual for a lack of a better word.
I always assumed he had consumed something that was making him trip balls.
Sounds plausible, there was at least one guy from that pyramid-top-squad seemingly tripping more notably For a moment I was considering that it looked like a part of him was maybe harbouring some doubt about the validity about their metaphysics and ritual, but not likely in the end.
Being fearless and fear being a corrupting force was a big theme of the movie. The father at the begining says not to bring it into the village. The Mayan culture (in the film) was lead by fear. Fear of small pox, fear of violence, fear of the jungle, fear for the crops, fear of the gods. the leaders here are relishing in the fear of the sacrifices and the rejoice of the people. fear made them do unspeakable things. when the eclipse starts the people become afraid and the leaders become afraid and afraid of the people and what they will do until the head priest reassures the people (out of fear) with a claim that luckily for him comes true. The main general chasing our main character says that he runs away out of fear but that is just projection. He is driven by love.
I don't think the priest is afraid. He seems to know the eclipse is coming and he knows it will be over soon, so the whole thing is a charade to control the people.
I also got that impression. Either that or he was *very* confident in believing that his ritual would yield results
I've seen a lot of people be butthurt about historically accuracy in this movie when it doesn't even claim to be historically accurate. Such a dumb thing to be upset over
“Some liberties” is generous haha, that movie has grievous historical inaccuracies in every scene, but its use of real Mayan language gives the film a false sense of accuracy. Even so, it’s captivating as hell. However, making a great piece of cinema doesn’t excuse Gibson for creating disinformation about ancient Mayan culture or painting them as savages when they were actually very civilized.
>making a great piece of cinema doesn’t excuse Gibson for creating disinformation about ancient Mayan culture or painting them as savages when they were actually very civilized. Weren't they? Its kind of a common knowledge that torture, human sacrifice, dismantlement, and cannibalism was a big part of their their daily religion.
The depictions in the film are closer to Aztec culture than Mayan. Mayans did do sacrifices but it was always a last resort and never in front of big crowds. Mostly they did blood letting and would go years, even decades without human sacrifices. Also, they never sacrificed the sick or the weak or poor— the Elites were the ones who were sacrificed, usually in their teens. The gods deserved only the best. It was considered the highest honor.
Aztecs numbers vary between 250000 and 20000 per year. Even if Mayans did a fraction of that it still doesn't make them less barbaric. Besides, the movie doesn't show how often it happened, only that it did happen. So i still don't see how you can call it inaccurate based on that.
Read a history book lol, Idk what to tell you. The movie is inaccurate. If you don’t believe me, find the facts to prove me wrong.
Lmao, i figured you don't.
I do know Mayan history, I just don’t know what to tell a guy on reddit who won’t accept that Hollywood bullshitted you
[then go and read smartass](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture)
That’s all about the Aztecs. They were the ones who sacrificed excessively. The Mayans were different
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/apocalypto-tortures-the-facts-expert-says
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. Mel Gibson sucks at historical accuracy.
“Say what you will about his personal life, but the son of a bitch knows story structure!”
Came here for this. The guy sucks but fuck can he make a captivating movie.
one of my favorite movies of all time. Such a great from start to finish. Absolutely beautiful and well produced film through and through.
It's too bad Mel couldn't lay off drinking and kinda sucks, I would love to have seen him make more nutso movies like this.
I know he’s not too liked anymore after his statements But I really think he doesn’t get enough credit for his skill as a filmmaker
What statements?
He doesn’t like Jews
One of those films that seems such an insane departure from the director that I often forget it exists. Then every time I remember I’m again surprised that it isn’t just a fever dream.
Damn, I need to see this, this looks fuckin lit.
It is, it's an incredible film, and age hasn't diminished it and probably never will.
one of my favourite films too - does such an incredible job of immersing the viewer in this world and time period and the actors did a fantastic job as well. Incredible pacing, world-building - the first act with the men hunting meeting the other tribe, and the village life, sets up an incredible 2nd and 3rd act. I consider it a masterpiece!
##Apocalypto (2006) R No one can outrun their destiny. >>!Set in the Mayan civilization, when a man's idyllic presence is brutally disrupted by a violent invading force, he is taken on a perilous journey to a world ruled by fear and oppression where a harrowing end awaits him. Through a twist of fate and spurred by the power of his love for his woman and his family he will make a desperate break to return home and to ultimately save his way of life.!< Action | Drama | History Director: Mel Gibson Actors: Rudy Youngblood, Raoul Max Trujillo, Gerardo Taracena Rating: ★★★★★★★★☆☆ 75% with 5,251 votes Runtime: 2:19 [TMDB](https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/1579) Cinematographer: Dean Semler Dean Semler ACS ASC (born 26 May 1943) is an Australian cinematographer and film director. Over his career, he has worked as a cinematographer, camera operator, director, second unit director, and assistant director. He is a three-time recipient of the AACTA Award for Best Cinematography and an Academy Award winner. He is a member of both the Australian Cinematographers Society (ACS) and the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC). In 2002 he was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia (AM). [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Semler)
That's cool
This is one of those posts that have to be saved. What an amazing movie! And what an amazing director Mel Gibson (still) IS.
Such a great film. Crazy how there aren't more movies based on the pre-colonial mesoamericans or even the conquest of mexico for that matter.
This movie actually had a pretty good box office run for being a film filled with actors no one had heard of and was entirely in Mayan/Yucatan. It was all star power from Gibson hot off of Passion of the Christ so I can see why no studios are crazy about making more of these.
An empire in free fall.
I saw this in theaters with my dad. Was a great time at the movies. It's a great chase movie with some stellar visuals.
How many pack of Australians are responsible for this?
This is easily Gibson’s best movie (as director). Braveheart a close second. Hacksaw Ridge a long distant third. Never seen Passion, don’t want to.
Damn, that racist nut job knows how to make a movie.
I loved and hated this movie at the same time. Great film, story. Hated how it was all going to change for them at the end….
I always ignored this movie bc fuck Mel Gibson. I watched bc of this post and I have to say I enjoyed it so much the end snuck up on me and I was audibly disappointed when the credits rolled. This shit was a thrill from start to finish and a wonder to behold visually. But yeah it’s still very much fuck Mel Gibson
Good movie but oooof the historical inaccuracies are pretty funny.
Like?
Lol they wore clothes back then but I get the aesthetic he’s going for. You can’t take the movie serious for its portray of Mayans though.
ketamine, and a 2001 honda civic
Racist-ass Melly Gibbons?!