[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Please note that the only hysterical person here is the Judester herself, which she will hopefully demonstrate for us all later tonight. :-) Well, actually I'll demonstrate how hysterical Barry was all morning. By using up a day's worth of posts in the first couple of hours of the new posting week. That was my whole intention, Jude. :-) I knew you'd have to double down on seeing nothing wrong with calling someone a Christian bigot on the basis of *a movie you'd never seen, and still have never seen*. But I also knew you'd feel your self image so threatened by the subject coming up again that you'd overcompensate and...uh...post away like a crazy person to do image repair and try to get the focus back on you again. You did. Mission accomplished. :-) See what I mean? Obsessed, pure and simple. You LIVE to 'get' Judy. Let it go, Barry, let it go. There is always stamp collecting to take up all that free time you will have once you do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: See what I mean? Obsessed, pure and simple. You LIVE to 'get' Judy. Nonsense. Every so often I just like winding her up and letting her get herself, that's all. Happy to see it works for more than one wind-up toy... :-) [http://images.wikia.com/zenukchats/images/9/95/Monkey_cymbal.gif]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Please note that the only hysterical person here is the Judester herself, which she will hopefully demonstrate for us all later tonight. :-) Well, actually I'll demonstrate how hysterical Barry was all morning. By using up a day's worth of posts in the first couple of hours of the new posting week. You're referring to the two posts I made yesterday evening?? In response to the seven posts you made? Barry's mental decline is getting really serious now. Well, there was one more post of his I had intended to take apart in which he attempts to justify his disastrous crash-and-burn, but maybe I should just leave it be out of compassion. That was my whole intention, Jude. :-) I knew you'd have to double down on seeing nothing wrong with calling someone a Christian bigot on the basis of *a movie you'd never seen, and still have never seen*. But I also knew you'd feel your self image so threatened by the subject coming up again that you'd overcompensate and...uh...post away like a crazy person to do image repair and try to get the focus back on you again. You did. Mission accomplished. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Please note that the only hysterical person here is the Judester herself, which she will hopefully demonstrate for us all later tonight. :-) Well, actually I'll demonstrate how hysterical Barry was all morning. By using up a day's worth of posts in the first couple of hours of the new posting week. That was my whole intention, Jude. :-) I knew you'd have to double down on seeing nothing wrong with calling someone a Christian bigot on the basis of *a movie you'd never seen, and still have never seen*. But I also knew you'd feel your self image so threatened by the subject coming up again that you'd overcompensate and...uh...post away like a crazy person to do image repair and try to get the focus back on you again. You did. Mission accomplished. :-) See what I mean? Obsessed, pure and simple. You LIVE to 'get' Judy. Let it go, Barry, let it go. There is always stamp collecting to take up all that free time you will have once you do. But that won't get folks at FFL to pay attention to him. That's why he went off the deep end on this, because I'd explained to Michael that nobody was paying him much attention any longer except to make fun of him. And he just *had* to do something to prove me wrong...giving us all a whole bunch of opportunities to make fun of him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: One gets the feeling that the author of the Salon piece didn't really see it, either. He says stuff like, In Apocalypto, the arrival of the Spanish signals 'a new beginning.' Remarkably, the event is portrayed as tranquil, as if the Spaniards are the adults who have finally come to rescue the 'littleuns' stranded on the island of William Golding's Lord of the Flies. This is total bullshit, and did not happen in the film. The pedantic professor is *projecting* this onto the movie. The line a new beginning clearly refers to the hero's new life now that he has rescued his wife and children, and escaped his pursuers. It has *nothing to do* with the arrival of the Spanish; they are mere backdrops. If what I remember in history is correct, i.e. that the Spaniards brought smallpox and other disease to the Mayan empire, then I viewed the arrival of the Spaniards at the end of the movie as the ultimate ironic statement of the movie...they actually *hastened* the downfall of the Mayan empire (now how's *that* for change?). This is true, but most of the empire was already gone by the time the Spanish arrived. Really, this was the first thought that went through my mind the first time I saw the movie and the camera panned from the surprised faces of the Mayans on the beach to the Spanish ships anchored offshore. Mine, too. Of course, we had the advantage of actually having seen the movie; Judy did not. With that in mind, perhaps one can now interpret what happened in the movie in other ways: karmic return for the civilized Mayans, the salvation of the young Mayan (once again) and his family by his decision to turn his back on the yet unknown and ultimate death that the Spaniards were bringing (again, this is what I thought the first time I saw this scene), etc. One can interpret *a movie one has actually seen* any way one wants; that does not mean that the writer/director saw it that way. I found the movie disturbing yet fascinating at the same time, and am not sure one can read too much into the movie other than Gibson's story-telling ability then letting the audience come to their own conclusions. The whole point of the author's tirade and Judy's piggybacking on it was that they didn't WANT the audience to come to their own conclusions. They wanted them to agree with THEIR conclusions, however wrong they were. However, with his beliefs coming through loud and clear in his later Passion of the Christ movie... Ooops. Stop right there. The Passion of the Christ was *earlier*, not later. Apocalypto = 2006, TPofC = 2004. ...maybe the arrival of the Spaniards *was* intended to represent the ultimate salvation of the heathen Mayans (now how's *that* for salvation?). Mel's one crazy-assed religious fanatic, that's for sure. What I'm saying is that I saw NONE of that in this film. Nor did most people who saw it. Even the Pedantic Professor didn't see anything Christian in the movie, or if he did he didn't mention it in the article he wrote for Salon. JUDY saw that -- in a film that she never saw. One would think, if she actually meant what she has said many times about rigorous honesty being the willingness to expose oneself to facts that might prove oneself W...W...W...WRONG, that she'd have bothered to rent the film by now and then issue an apology to Mel Gibson for slandering him. But I think we all know that's never going to happen. Please don't get me wrong. I don't think Mel Gibson is the best filmmaker in the world as a director, only that he has a certain flair for action/romance movies. In that respect, he's a lot like Warren Beatty. The latter's movie Reds was not about the Russian Revolution, ferchrissakes, it was about the love story between John Reed and Louise Bryant. Similarly, Apocalypto was not a movie about the Maya per se, or an attempt to be completely factual. That's what the Pedantic Professor would have wanted, or created himself if he'd had the ability to. It was an ENTERTAINMENT, a story meant to entertain, and possibly uplift with its eventual triumph of the main character overcoming everything thrown at him, and being reunited with his wife and kids. Trying to diss it for being not as factual as an academic Maya nerd might have wanted it to is as STOPID as trying to diss the film Cleopatra for being not 100% accurate in its depictions of Egypt and Roman soldiers. Cleopatra was a love story; so was Apocalypto.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: One gets the feeling that the author of the Salon piece didn't really see it, either. He says stuff like, In Apocalypto, the arrival of the Spanish signals 'a new beginning.' Remarkably, the event is portrayed as tranquil, as if the Spaniards are the adults who have finally come to rescue the 'littleuns' stranded on the island of William Golding's Lord of the Flies. This is total bullshit, and did not happen in the film. The pedantic professor is *projecting* this onto the movie. The line a new beginning clearly refers to the hero's new life now that he has rescued his wife and children, and escaped his pursuers. It has *nothing to do* with the arrival of the Spanish; they are mere backdrops. If what I remember in history is correct, i.e. that the Spaniards brought smallpox and other disease to the Mayan empire, then I viewed the arrival of the Spaniards at the end of the movie as the ultimate ironic statement of the movie...they actually *hastened* the downfall of the Mayan empire (now how's *that* for change?). This is true, but most of the empire was already gone by the time the Spanish arrived. Really, this was the first thought that went through my mind the first time I saw the movie and the camera panned from the surprised faces of the Mayans on the beach to the Spanish ships anchored offshore. Mine, too. Of course, we had the advantage of actually having seen the movie; Judy did not. With that in mind, perhaps one can now interpret what happened in the movie in other ways: karmic return for the civilized Mayans, the salvation of the young Mayan (once again) and his family by his decision to turn his back on the yet unknown and ultimate death that the Spaniards were bringing (again, this is what I thought the first time I saw this scene), etc. One can interpret *a movie one has actually seen* any way one wants; that does not mean that the writer/director saw it that way. I found the movie disturbing yet fascinating at the same time, and am not sure one can read too much into the movie other than Gibson's story-telling ability then letting the audience come to their own conclusions. The whole point of the author's tirade and Judy's piggybacking on it was that they didn't WANT the audience to come to their own conclusions. They wanted them to agree with THEIR conclusions, however wrong they were. I hear what you're saying, I really do, but I just wanted to expand of what was already started as an opportunity for me to talk about the movie and some of the conclusions I came to. Like you, I didn't see any Christian themes in the movie and didn't even know Gibson had directed it until the end credits, therefore I was able to view the movie without any preconceived notions whatsoever with regard to what such a director might be trying to say in the movie. Like you, I viewed it as simply a good story well told with some spotty history as the backdrop. However, with his beliefs coming through loud and clear in his later Passion of the Christ movie... Ooops. Stop right there. The Passion of the Christ was *earlier*, not later. Apocalypto = 2006, TPofC = 2004. Oopsy, my bad. When I wrote that, I had a momentarily impulse to google it to see if I had my facts right but then decided not to (very interesting...maybe I need to start acting on my impulses). ...maybe the arrival of the Spaniards *was* intended to represent the ultimate salvation of the heathen Mayans (now how's *that* for salvation?). Mel's one crazy-assed religious fanatic, that's for sure. What I'm saying is that I saw NONE of that in this film. Nor did most people who saw it. Even the Pedantic Professor didn't see anything Christian in the movie, or if he did he didn't mention it in the article he wrote for Salon. JUDY saw that -- in a film that she never saw. One would think, if she actually meant what she has said many times about rigorous honesty being the willingness to expose oneself to facts that might prove oneself W...W...W...WRONG, that she'd have bothered to rent the film by now and then issue an apology to Mel Gibson for slandering him. But I think we all know that's never going to happen. Please don't get me wrong. I don't think Mel Gibson is the best filmmaker in the world as a director, only that he has a certain flair for action/romance movies. In that respect, he's a lot like Warren Beatty. The latter's movie Reds was not about the Russian Revolution, ferchrissakes, it was about the love story between John Reed and Louise Bryant. Good comparison. And if I may extend a bit: as I recall, none of Beatty's, in this case, *political* rather than *religious* leanings
[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
I'll have more to say this evening about Barry's hysterical meltdown, but in the meantime, here's a post I made back in 2007 after Barry had brought this up again. The Maya expert in the Salon article I quoted was, um, not exactly the only knowledgeable person to have been upset by the movie: A few selections from articles discussing the historical inaccuracies in Apocalypto From the San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/6/06: 'Apocalypto' a pack of inaccuracies Maya experts say Gibson's violent film wrong historically By Mark McGuire NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE December 12, 2006 Mel Gibson's historical drama Apocalypto certainly has a veneer of authenticity. If you have to scramble to remember your fifth-grade lessons on Maya culture, you'd certainly believe you're watching an accurate, detail-rich depiction of Mesoamerican life. A lot of people will think this is how it was, said Walter Little, an anthropologist and expert on Maya language and culture at the State University of New York at Albany. Unfortunately. Little and two other Mesoamerican scholars at the Albany campus recently screened the big-budget, subtitled epic, which opened Friday and was last weekend's No. 1 movie, grossing $14.2 million. All three said they were disappointed by the plot and taken aback by the graphic violence, which to these eyes suggested Braveheart as directed by Quentin Tarantino in a particularly vile mood. But even if they could sponge away the blood, these experts found the devil or at least a set of thumbs-down reviews in the details. This was not a film about the Mayas, said Robert Carmack, a retired anthropology professor from SUNY Albany's lauded Mesoamerican program. It's a big mistake almost a tragedy that they present this as a Maya film. In any genre film, experts and geeks alike will pore over the minutiae. In their estimation, a movie rises or falls on the little things. Seafaring experts debate the minor gaffes of Titanic, while experts on ancient Rome talk about minor historical imperfections in Gladiator. Most moviegoers won't catch these mistakes or willful fact- doctorings. Does it matter to the average ticket holder that Gibson apparently fudged some facts? Not really, especially if you're just looking for a period adventure featuring, by my unofficial count, 12 wildly different modes of killing. There are no guns, but lots of lethal weapons. To those in the know, however, the flaws stick out like Roseanne Barr in a Broadway musical. Take the film's depiction of a major Maya city that serves as the setting for much of the film's third act. Many of the architectural details are correct, but they're cobbled together from different locations (including ancient cities in Guatemala and the Yucatan) and different eras, the experts said. So what, you say? Try picturing 16th-century explorer Giovanni da Verrazano navigating the east coast of the New World, and then ending his journey by traversing the New York City suspension bridge that bears his name. You get the idea. The experts said they thought, during much of the movie, it was set sometime between A.D. 300 and 900 until a closing scene places it closer to the early 1500s. It was a postmodern collage, Little said. It was a hodgepodge. Carmack grew more and more steamed in his post-screening analysis. In particular, he seethed over the portrayals of human sacrifices and other spectacles, which he said more closely resembled practices used by the Aztecs or even the ancient Romans. The sadism that permeates the movie was simply not part of the culture, the experts said. Yes, the Mayas practiced human sacrifice, but in ways that were highly ritualized and usually involved a single victim. Not pretty, to be sure, but a far cry from the slaughterhouse of mass sacrifice depicted in Apocalypto a virtual conga line of the soon-to-be headless, followed by desecration of their bodies. The body count was high, and the treatment of the dead cavalier, all three anthropologists said. The Mayas, an agricultural society, also would not have had an open field of rotting corpses situated near their crops. Modern-day descendants of the Mayas would be totally disgusted by this film, Carmack said. It was all invented. The ritual was a disgusting perversion of human sacrifices among the Mayas. Edgar Martin del Campo, a newly arrived faculty member who begins teaching at SUNY Albany in January, talked about religious glitches and other flaws. Examples: Mayas would not have been awed by an eclipse as they were in the film they were, in fact, early astronomers. Villagers would not have been dumbstruck by a city; most lived in or around metropolises. The costumes were contrived. Give the film this, the scholars said: Gibson was brave enough to make the movie in the Yucatec language. But just as the use of Yucatec isn't exactly a guarantee of boffo box office, the historical inaccuracies of Gibson's latest will zoom right by the average viewer.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: I'll have more to say this evening about Barry's hysterical meltdown, but in the meantime, here's a post I made back in 2007 after Barry had brought this up again. The Maya expert in the Salon article I quoted was, um, not exactly the only knowledgeable person to have been upset by the movie: Please note that the only hysterical person here is the Judester herself, which she will hopefully demonstrate for us all later tonight. :-) Please also note that she has said NOT A WORD about the real issues at play here. That is, it's NOT ABOUT whether the movie was historically inaccurate. No one has suggested that it was. Any attempt to get people to focus on that is a diversion from the real issues. What those issues are -- the ones that Judy will continue to avoid dealing with -- revolve around: 1. Why did she feel competent to comment on a film she had never seen, and obviously has *still* never seen? 2. Why did she choose to characterize Mel Gibson as a Christian bigot (again, based on a film she'd never seen), when the article she was originally taking as gospel did not mention a word about Christianity? Please note also that not a single one of the sources she cites below say anything about Christian supremicist themes in the movie, either. JUDY MADE THAT UP. ABOUT A MOVIE SHE HAD NEVER SEEN. SHE'S STILL SAYING IT, SIX YEARS LATER. ABOUT A MOVIE SHE'S *STILL* NEVER SEEN. RATHER THAN ADMITTING THIS, SHE'S GOING TO DOUBLE DOWN. SHE'S A NUTCASE. :-) A few selections from articles discussing the historical inaccuracies in Apocalypto From the San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/6/06: 'Apocalypto' a pack of inaccuracies Maya experts say Gibson's violent film wrong historically By Mark McGuire NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE December 12, 2006 Mel Gibson's historical drama Apocalypto certainly has a veneer of authenticity. If you have to scramble to remember your fifth-grade lessons on Maya culture, you'd certainly believe you're watching an accurate, detail-rich depiction of Mesoamerican life. A lot of people will think this is how it was, said Walter Little, an anthropologist and expert on Maya language and culture at the State University of New York at Albany. Unfortunately. Little and two other Mesoamerican scholars at the Albany campus recently screened the big-budget, subtitled epic, which opened Friday and was last weekend's No. 1 movie, grossing $14.2 million. All three said they were disappointed by the plot and taken aback by the graphic violence, which to these eyes suggested Braveheart as directed by Quentin Tarantino in a particularly vile mood. But even if they could sponge away the blood, these experts found the devil or at least a set of thumbs-down reviews in the details. This was not a film about the Mayas, said Robert Carmack, a retired anthropology professor from SUNY Albany's lauded Mesoamerican program. It's a big mistake almost a tragedy that they present this as a Maya film. In any genre film, experts and geeks alike will pore over the minutiae. In their estimation, a movie rises or falls on the little things. Seafaring experts debate the minor gaffes of Titanic, while experts on ancient Rome talk about minor historical imperfections in Gladiator. Most moviegoers won't catch these mistakes or willful fact- doctorings. Does it matter to the average ticket holder that Gibson apparently fudged some facts? Not really, especially if you're just looking for a period adventure featuring, by my unofficial count, 12 wildly different modes of killing. There are no guns, but lots of lethal weapons. To those in the know, however, the flaws stick out like Roseanne Barr in a Broadway musical. Take the film's depiction of a major Maya city that serves as the setting for much of the film's third act. Many of the architectural details are correct, but they're cobbled together from different locations (including ancient cities in Guatemala and the Yucatan) and different eras, the experts said. So what, you say? Try picturing 16th-century explorer Giovanni da Verrazano navigating the east coast of the New World, and then ending his journey by traversing the New York City suspension bridge that bears his name. You get the idea. The experts said they thought, during much of the movie, it was set sometime between A.D. 300 and 900 until a closing scene places it closer to the early 1500s. It was a postmodern collage, Little said. It was a hodgepodge. Carmack grew more and more steamed in his post-screening analysis. In particular, he seethed over the portrayals of human sacrifices and other spectacles, which he said more closely resembled practices used by the Aztecs or even the ancient Romans. The sadism that permeates the movie was simply not part of the culture, the experts said. Yes, the Mayas practiced human
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
As my great grandmother Ada (that everyone who knew here referred to as Miss Ader) would have said, Lord-A-Mercy! You should-a kept your mouth shut, boy! meaning me, I should a kep my mouth shut! From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 10:55 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: I'll have more to say this evening about Barry's hysterical meltdown, but in the meantime, here's a post I made back in 2007 after Barry had brought this up again. The Maya expert in the Salon article I quoted was, um, not exactly the only knowledgeable person to have been upset by the movie: Please note that the only hysterical person here is the Judester herself, which she will hopefully demonstrate for us all later tonight. :-) Please also note that she has said NOT A WORD about the real issues at play here. That is, it's NOT ABOUT whether the movie was historically inaccurate. No one has suggested that it was. Any attempt to get people to focus on that is a diversion from the real issues. What those issues are -- the ones that Judy will continue to avoid dealing with -- revolve around: 1. Why did she feel competent to comment on a film she had never seen, and obviously has *still* never seen? 2. Why did she choose to characterize Mel Gibson as a Christian bigot (again, based on a film she'd never seen), when the article she was originally taking as gospel did not mention a word about Christianity? Please note also that not a single one of the sources she cites below say anything about Christian supremicist themes in the movie, either. JUDY MADE THAT UP. ABOUT A MOVIE SHE HAD NEVER SEEN. SHE'S STILL SAYING IT, SIX YEARS LATER. ABOUT A MOVIE SHE'S *STILL* NEVER SEEN. RATHER THAN ADMITTING THIS, SHE'S GOING TO DOUBLE DOWN. SHE'S A NUTCASE. :-) A few selections from articles discussing the historical inaccuracies in Apocalypto From the San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/6/06: 'Apocalypto' a pack of inaccuracies Maya experts say Gibson's violent film wrong historically By Mark McGuire NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE December 12, 2006 Mel Gibson's historical drama Apocalypto certainly has a veneer of authenticity. If you have to scramble to remember your fifth-grade lessons on Maya culture, you'd certainly believe you're watching an accurate, detail-rich depiction of Mesoamerican life. A lot of people will think this is how it was, said Walter Little, an anthropologist and expert on Maya language and culture at the State University of New York at Albany. Unfortunately. Little and two other Mesoamerican scholars at the Albany campus recently screened the big-budget, subtitled epic, which opened Friday and was last weekend's No. 1 movie, grossing $14.2 million. All three said they were disappointed by the plot and taken aback by the graphic violence, which to these eyes suggested Braveheart as directed by Quentin Tarantino in a particularly vile mood. But even if they could sponge away the blood, these experts found the devil – or at least a set of thumbs-down reviews – in the details. This was not a film about the Mayas, said Robert Carmack, a retired anthropology professor from SUNY Albany's lauded Mesoamerican program. It's a big mistake – almost a tragedy – that they present this as a Maya film. In any genre film, experts and geeks alike will pore over the minutiae. In their estimation, a movie rises or falls on the little things. Seafaring experts debate the minor gaffes of Titanic, while experts on ancient Rome talk about minor historical imperfections in Gladiator. Most moviegoers won't catch these mistakes or willful fact- doctorings. Does it matter to the average ticket holder that Gibson apparently fudged some facts? Not really, especially if you're just looking for a period adventure featuring, by my unofficial count, 12 wildly different modes of killing. There are no guns, but lots of lethal weapons. To those in the know, however, the flaws stick out like Roseanne Barr in a Broadway musical. Take the film's depiction of a major Maya city that serves as the setting for much of the film's third act. Many of the architectural details are correct, but they're cobbled together from different locations (including ancient cities in Guatemala and the Yucatan) and different eras, the experts said. So what, you say? Try picturing 16th-century explorer Giovanni da Verrazano navigating the east coast of the New World, and then ending his journey by traversing the New York City suspension bridge that bears his name. You get the idea. The experts said they thought, during much of the movie, it was set sometime between A.D. 300 and 900 – until a closing scene places it closer to the early 1500s. It was a postmodern
[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: I'll have more to say this evening about Barry's hysterical meltdown, but in the meantime, here's a post I made back in 2007 after Barry had brought this up again. The Maya expert in the Salon article I quoted was, um, not exactly the only knowledgeable person to have been upset by the movie: Please note that the only hysterical person here is the Judester herself, which she will hopefully demonstrate for us all later tonight. :-) Please also note that she has said NOT A WORD about the real issues at play here. That is, it's NOT ABOUT whether the movie was historically inaccurate. No one has suggested that it was. Any attempt to get people to focus on that is a diversion from the real issues. What those issues are -- the ones that Judy will continue to avoid dealing with -- revolve around: 1. Why did she feel competent to comment on a film she had never seen, and obviously has *still* never seen? 2. Why did she choose to characterize Mel Gibson as a Christian bigot (again, based on a film she'd never seen), when the article she was originally taking as gospel did not mention a word about Christianity? Please note also that not a single one of the sources she cites below say anything about Christian supremicist themes in the movie, either. JUDY MADE THAT UP. ABOUT A MOVIE SHE HAD NEVER SEEN. SHE'S STILL SAYING IT, SIX YEARS LATER. ABOUT A MOVIE SHE'S *STILL* NEVER SEEN. RATHER THAN ADMITTING THIS, SHE'S GOING TO DOUBLE DOWN. SHE'S A NUTCASE. :-) So, it's all about Judy. A few selections from articles discussing the historical inaccuracies in Apocalypto From the San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/6/06: 'Apocalypto' a pack of inaccuracies Maya experts say Gibson's violent film wrong historically By Mark McGuire NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE December 12, 2006 Mel Gibson's historical drama Apocalypto certainly has a veneer of authenticity. If you have to scramble to remember your fifth-grade lessons on Maya culture, you'd certainly believe you're watching an accurate, detail-rich depiction of Mesoamerican life. A lot of people will think this is how it was, said Walter Little, an anthropologist and expert on Maya language and culture at the State University of New York at Albany. Unfortunately. Little and two other Mesoamerican scholars at the Albany campus recently screened the big-budget, subtitled epic, which opened Friday and was last weekend's No. 1 movie, grossing $14.2 million. All three said they were disappointed by the plot and taken aback by the graphic violence, which to these eyes suggested Braveheart as directed by Quentin Tarantino in a particularly vile mood. But even if they could sponge away the blood, these experts found the devil or at least a set of thumbs-down reviews in the details. This was not a film about the Mayas, said Robert Carmack, a retired anthropology professor from SUNY Albany's lauded Mesoamerican program. It's a big mistake almost a tragedy that they present this as a Maya film. In any genre film, experts and geeks alike will pore over the minutiae. In their estimation, a movie rises or falls on the little things. Seafaring experts debate the minor gaffes of Titanic, while experts on ancient Rome talk about minor historical imperfections in Gladiator. Most moviegoers won't catch these mistakes or willful fact- doctorings. Does it matter to the average ticket holder that Gibson apparently fudged some facts? Not really, especially if you're just looking for a period adventure featuring, by my unofficial count, 12 wildly different modes of killing. There are no guns, but lots of lethal weapons. To those in the know, however, the flaws stick out like Roseanne Barr in a Broadway musical. Take the film's depiction of a major Maya city that serves as the setting for much of the film's third act. Many of the architectural details are correct, but they're cobbled together from different locations (including ancient cities in Guatemala and the Yucatan) and different eras, the experts said. So what, you say? Try picturing 16th-century explorer Giovanni da Verrazano navigating the east coast of the New World, and then ending his journey by traversing the New York City suspension bridge that bears his name. You get the idea. The experts said they thought, during much of the movie, it was set sometime between A.D. 300 and 900 until a closing scene places it closer to the early 1500s. It was a postmodern collage, Little said. It was a hodgepodge. Carmack grew more and more steamed in his post-screening analysis. In particular, he seethed over the portrayals of human sacrifices and other spectacles,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: I'll have more to say this evening about Barry's hysterical meltdown, but in the meantime, here's a post I made back in 2007 after Barry had brought this up again. The Maya expert in the Salon article I quoted was, um, not exactly the only knowledgeable person to have been upset by the movie: A few selections from articles discussing the historical inaccuracies in Apocalypto... Barry is just doing what he always does, so why is this an 'hysterical meltdown'? As for Apocalypto, a rather brutal film, it's fiction. Even documentary films have very selective viewpoints, are assembled from secondary material, like old film prints (of which the original negative would be the most primary source), recollections, etc., so such a film has many elements of fiction, a retelling of a tale. The original event, say World War II, is long gone, it happened once, and fragmented memories of the event in the minds of people, and the shards of physical remains, military reports, news accounts, films, photos, are reassembled in what one thinks is a likeness of the event. For example the current film 'Lincoln' is not what happened, it is a representation of what happened and historically, if one looks at details, it has a skewed viewpoint compared with a consensus view (also skewed) of 'what happened'. I recall the end of 'Apocalypto' and if I make an interpretation of it, it is just as skewed as the film is skewed in relation to any original event concerning the Maya. To put it simply my fictional account of the finale of the film is this: * The Mayan family hides in the forest as the Spaniards come. Now to this I can layer on additional interpretations from my own mind, based on rather poor memories of reading history books and from school. I can then project that the Mayan civilisation will fall, that the Spaniards are bringing the true Catholic faith to these poor savages because I remember that Spain was Catholic, and Gibson is Catholic. But I have never been to Spain, let alone in the 16th century. I have never met Mel Gibson. My 'knowledge' of Gibson rests entirely on non-primary sources, does not rest on any actual experience of the purported existence of Gibson. I watched 'Apocalypto' on a DVD. If I had to, say, prove anything on the basis of direct experience about that DVD, where it came from, how it came to be, and how it related to an actual world, it would be an impossible task. Only if I were very general, and adopted what I would term a conventional viewpoint about reality would this even be thinkable, and the result would be entirely derivative, would be just as much a fiction as what I was investigating.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: I'll have more to say this evening about Barry's hysterical meltdown, but in the meantime, here's a post I made back in 2007 after Barry had brought this up again. The Maya expert in the Salon article I quoted was, um, not exactly the only knowledgeable person to have been upset by the movie: A few selections from articles discussing the historical inaccuracies in Apocalypto... Barry is just doing what he always does, so why is this an 'hysterical meltdown'? Well, you'd have to read his posts in this thread to know why I called it that. (I don't *think* Xeno meant to suggest that Barry is always engaged in hysterical meltdowns; I think he just miswrote.) As for Apocalypto, a rather brutal film, it's fiction. Yes. Once you've read the published commentary I quoted, we can discuss why the historical inaccuracies are so significant. snip Now to this I can layer on additional interpretations from my own mind, based on rather poor memories of reading history books and from school. I can then project that the Mayan civilisation will fall, that the Spaniards are bringing the true Catholic faith to these poor savages Actually it had already fallen well before the Spanish arrived. As to whether the Mayans were actually poor savages, well, that's part of the issue with the film.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: I'll have more to say this evening about Barry's hysterical meltdown, but in the meantime, here's a post I made back in 2007 after Barry had brought this up again. The Maya expert in the Salon article I quoted was, um, not exactly the only knowledgeable person to have been upset by the movie: Please note that the only hysterical person here is the Judester herself, which she will hopefully demonstrate for us all later tonight. :-) Well, actually I'll demonstrate how hysterical Barry was all morning. It was my remark about how nobody pays attention to him any more except to make fun of him that triggered his meltdown. Which, as I noted to laughinggull, gives me lots of chances to make fun of him, as I anticipated. Please also note that she has said NOT A WORD about the real issues at play here. I haven't even gotten started, toots. That is, it's NOT ABOUT whether the movie was historically inaccurate. No one has suggested that it was. Au contraire, Pierre. Any attempt to get people to focus on that is a diversion from the real issues. Actually, as Barry knows, the real issues have very much to do with the historical inaccuracies in the movie. What those issues are -- the ones that Judy will continue to avoid dealing with -- revolve around: 1. Why did she feel competent to comment on a film she had never seen, and obviously has *still* never seen? Bogus question. Of course there's no reason one shouldn't comment on the issues surrounding a film when there's plenty of good reporting on those issues, as there was with Apocalypto. 2. Why did she choose to characterize Mel Gibson as a Christian bigot (again, based on a film she'd never seen), when the article she was originally taking as gospel did not mention a word about Christianity? As already noted (and even acknowledged by Barry himself), Mel Gibson was widely considered to be a Christian bigot well before the film came out. The article didn't mention Christianity explicitly, but it was very distinctly implicit, as I noted at the time. Please note also that not a single one of the sources she cites below say anything about Christian supremicist themes in the movie, either. In fact, it's mentioned explicitly in two of the pieces: Yes, Gibson includes the arrival of clearly Christian missionaries (these guys are too clean to be conquistadors) in the last five minutes of the story (in the real world the Spanish arrived 300 years after the last Maya city was abandoned). It is one of the few calm moments in an otherwise aggressively paced film. The message? The end is near and the savior has come. And: Ignacio Ochoa's [director of the Nahual Foundation that promotes Mayan culture] comment that Gibson replays... an offensive and racist notion that Maya people were brutal to one another long before the arrival of Europeans and thus they deserved, in fact, needed, rescue articulates what I was feeling, especially towards the end of this film. When the Berkeley crowd started booing at the end of the film as the Spanish- Christian missionaries arrive, I'm sure it was in response to this sense. How did Barry manage to miss these mentions, I wonder? I'll just leave this in for readers to contemplate: JUDY MADE THAT UP. ABOUT A MOVIE SHE HAD NEVER SEEN. SHE'S STILL SAYING IT, SIX YEARS LATER. ABOUT A MOVIE SHE'S *STILL* NEVER SEEN. RATHER THAN ADMITTING THIS, SHE'S GOING TO DOUBLE DOWN. SHE'S A NUTCASE.
