The director precedes Apocalypto with a cryptic quote by philosopher Will Durant: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." Since the quote has nothing, in context, to do with the film, I’ll assume it refers to Gibson himself.The critic seems not to have the slightest sense that the film is a critique of violence.
I have read at least 6,000 pages of Mr. Durant's work, along with that of his delightful wife, Ariel. So I am not entirely cold coming into this. Mr. Durant's love of wisdom isn't the point. The point is his quote. People do not know what Mr. Durant was talking about. When he says a civilization destroys itself from within, what does he mean? What are the details and specifics in this destruction? ( I think people are much too familiar with quotes of brainy types being inserted into prominent positions in films and books. We have become so used to it that we tend to think that brainiac quotes are more like allegories with an aura of wisdom...but no particular meaning; certainly no meaning such that we should actually have to read some of the brainiac's works, and then study the works, and then try to understand. No. We have to draw the line somewhere.)
Mr. Durant lived through World War I. I would guess his age to be around 28 to 35 at the outbreak of the war. World War I was total carnage. It profoundly shocked the generations alive at the time. We have become inured to carnage. We dismiss WWI because we believe our own time deserves the Palme d'Or for killing. The illustrious Arnold Toynbee made it very clear in his extensive historical work that one favorite method by which civilizations destroy themselves is violence. Constant wars which deplenish the commonweal; strife within the society between the classes or groups therein; these are the true destroyers of civilization. Hence, the point of the quote is that civilizations will suicide from an overdose of violence.
We see another review in SFgate.com by Mick LaSalle http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/08/DDGSLMPQNF15.DTL&type=movies It's a bloodbath, of course, but to say that isn't enough. Scorsese movies can be a bloodbath, but would Scorsese ever show you a man eating the raw testicles of a wild boar within the first five minutes of screen time? And what about the running motif of beating hearts yanked from living bodies? No, for those excesses one can only turn to Mel.
First, Scorsese would not flinch from such a scene. Scorsese has demonstrated time and again a loving pre-occupation with over-the-top violence. Furthermore, there may have been intent in the juxtaposition of the quote and this early scene: this is a world of violent acts; we kill to eat; but some violence freely chosen will destroy the body rather than nourish it. That is a possible gloss. The reviewers I have chosen have no eyes for subtlety. Neither reviewer had any inkling that the movie was about VIOLENCE itself.
Neither reviewer sensed that there were two arenas: (1) the internal religious violence of a civilization, and (2) a standard chase sequence with its violence. We have become so used to the expression "gratuitous violence" we think all violence is gratuitous. Not so. Try making a war movie without any scenes of violence. What interested me mostly was whether Mr. Gibson had anything to say to us. Was there any allegory linking to our society and its predeliction for War and Violence? I think so. The reviewers above didn't even get a glimpse. And...every one of my friends did not understand it when they saw it. They did some remedial work on Durant afterwards maybe, but they did not get it. I shall always remember sitting in that darkened theater and feeling the growing realization that I was watching a work of genius.
Posts
6 comments:
My distant friend, I share the same view. I think far too often critics rely on a narrow sentiment, one that truncates the whole quality of such a fresh and heavy film. It is not for the appeal of every individual, however that does not negate its rawness as a finely descriptive film. Those that recoil from the graphic themes displayed should not disregard the underlying points that are the major themes which carry the viewer into a humanistic reality.
I am glad to hear from you.
I still think this film is magnificent and well worth seeing again and again over time.
Well, I thing Durant's quote has moral sense as well. A society that loses its moral bearings loses its direction. If right and wrong become relative to personal interpretation, then there can be no unifying principle to hold the civilization together. It is a "house divided against itself." There is no truth or fairness in trade, respecting the elders, or loving ones neighbor. Every man is a law unto himself.
Well, I thing Durant's quote has moral sense as well. A society that loses its moral bearings loses its direction. If right and wrong become relative to personal interpretation, then there can be no unifying principle to hold the civilization together. It is a "house divided against itself." There is no truth or fairness in trade, respecting the elders, or loving ones neighbor. Every man is a law unto himself.
Well, I thing Durant's quote has moral sense as well. A society that loses its moral bearings loses its direction. If right and wrong become relative to personal interpretation, then there can be no unifying principle to hold the civilization together. It is a "house divided against itself." There is no truth or fairness in trade, respecting the elders, or loving ones neighbor. Every man is a law unto himself.
Thanks for the comments.
I posted all three, because I understand how difficult it can be to try and comment these days and never be sure that things are going through. I have often given up commenting because I just don't have the time to try and check and see what's going on. It used to be simple.
I mean, some places insist I look at photos which are rather small and check off those which have rhododendron blooms in them, and I can barely make out whether the spot of red is a flower or a glass of chardonnay!
Anyway, you bring up an interesting point that I have to think about.
In Apocalypto I do not think we see a society in which right and wrong have become a matter of personal interpretation, rather, I think we are looking at a society which has chosen an evil morality and enslaves and kills its neighbors.
Allowing for an absolute or extra-personal norm on which to base morality in no way guarantees that there will not be rampant violence and suffering in some quarter of the inhabited world.
Look at the world today with people everywhere invoking absolutes, and blood runs in the streets.
I think we need a better way to live with uncertain moral outcomes.
We have ways to deal with uncertain economic outcomes, but we keep thinking morality is an absolute certainty, so we have no remedy to apply when things fall apart.
It is an interesting point.
Post a Comment