XPost: alt.mexico, alt.movies   
   From: donlhumphries@bigpond.com   
      
   "The Philestine"  wrote in message   
   news:45ab7bfa$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...   
   > Jules,   
   >   
   > An inciteful contribution to this discussion.  Your comments about   
   Gibson's   
   > portrayal of Christ's death as a political conspiracy have made me stop   
   and   
   > think again about that story.  While I can see from the scripture that   
   there   
   > were conpiratorial elements in the saga, it was more than just a   
   politically   
   > inspired entrapment.  Satanic forces were at work, and Mel's Passion pic   
   > does highlight that quite well, although in a very twisted sort of way.   
   > When I studied the film, it seemed to me that Mel's somewhat feminised   
   > (angrogynous is a better word) Devil is juxtaposed against Mary, and the   
   > battle for souls is waged between this Devil and the co-redemptorix mother   
   > of God.  It is a very Catholic twist in the Passion narrative, wherein   
   Mary   
   > emerges stronger than Christ.  That is NOT as it should be.   
   >   
   > Mel of course is an arch conspiracy theorist and this sub-text is the dark   
   > side if  his portrayal of Christ's final hours.  Apocolypto is but another   
   > of Mel's attempts to rewrite history and make the Catholic Church look   
   > better than it really is or was or ever will be.  I haven't seen the movie   
   > and will probably not see it until it is on DVD, if then.  But it doesn't   
   > surprise me that Mel has tackled this thorny subject with a clear   
   > objective - to remold the consensus on this pivotal moment in history in   
   an   
   > attempt to justify the crimes of the conquistadors in nearly wiping out a   
   > civilisation.  Mel is a dangerous ideologue and he needs to be watched and   
   > challenged.   
   >   
   > The Philistine   
   >   
   >   
   > "Jules Siegel"  wrote in message   
   > news:1166711396.538781.42640@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...   
   > > Rick wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> The references may be convincing to you, but that doesn't make them   
   > >> legitimate.  He's full of shit, trying to deny reality.  The Mayans   
   > >> practiced brutal human sacrifice.  Deal with it.   
   > >   
   > > The issues have been discussed at great length on the FAMSI (Foundation   
   > > for the Advancement of MesoAmerican Studies) by some of the world's   
   > > leading experts in Mayan history, language and culture. The general   
   > > agreement was that the movie was a crude misrepresentation of the role   
   > > human sacrifice among the Maya, although the costumes and settings were   
   > > accurate. The Maya did occasionally practice human sacrifice, but the   
   > > actual physical evidence consists of a few hundred -- if that many --   
   > > victims over period of at least a thousand years.   
   > >   
   > > I think that the issue of volume is very significant. All the evidence   
   > > indicates that these were exceptional acts, not some kind of daily or   
   > > seasonal routine, although it appears that some sacrificial victims   
   > > were prisoners of war. Human sacrifice in general is a known to have   
   > > occurred in many human cultures. It's hardly exclusive to the Maya. The   
   > > Spanish Inquisition and the witch burners called their own crimes   
   > > executions, but if they were to have been stripped of their   
   > > politico-religious context by invaders who rewrote Spanish history,   
   > > they would be almost indistinguishable from human sacrifice. The most   
   > > important issue is tone. Are we dealing with a reign of terror? Were   
   > > these killings like lynchings? Were the victims terrified, weeping,   
   > > struggling to escape (and, if we are to believe Gibson, sometimes   
   > > succeeding)?   
   > >   
   > > We had a very fruitful discussion on FAMSI about the meaning of death   
   > > in the Mayan world, which is quite different from the Western European   
   > > concept in ways that are too complex to go into here. Suffice it to say   
   > > that to this day the Maya do not see death as the definitive end of   
   > > individual human existence. All sentient beings resist death and cling   
   > > to life, but the ability to embrace death when necessary might be   
   > > considered a sign of advanced civilization rather than primitive   
   > > superstition. To me, the most interesting part of Syriana was the   
   > > simulation of the video testament of the suicide bomber. That is not to   
   > > say that I support suicide bombers or human sacrifice, but I do   
   > > perceive an entirely different tone from the view that is being   
   > > described by those who have seen Apocalipto.   
   > >   
   > > In "The Blood of Kings" Linda Schele described a Mayan princess Lady   
   > > Xoc on Yaxchilan Lintel 24 who is drawing a rope studded with thorns   
   > > through her tongue -- presumably in order to benefit her people. Kings   
   > > flayed and pierced their penises. Acts such as these were solemnly   
   > > recorded on stone monuments. On such and such a day, the King records,   
   > > "I gave blood." So this was clearly heroism, not terrorism, and the   
   > > sacrifices of the human victims were likely to have a similar solemn,   
   > > dignified and voluntary tone. They were giving their earthly lives for   
   > > the benefit of their friends, relatives and other beloved souls. They   
   > > were, possibly, joyful martyrs.   
   > >   
   > > We glorify the military heroes who go to their certain death against   
   > > the enemy. But when it comes to the Maya, Mel Gibson and his ilk   
   > > substitute a completely opposite set of values. In The Passion of the   
   > > Christ, the death of Jesus is pictured as the result of a political   
   > > conspiracy, I gather, not one man's willing sacrifice to save humanity   
   > > from endless hell. Maybe when we begin to try see the sacrificial   
   > > victims of the ancient pagan world as saints and heroes, just like the   
   > > Christian martyrs, and Jesus himself, we will have a better feeling for   
   > > what it was really like for them and their people in their time.   
   > >   
   > > I would also like to point out that as far as I know the principal   
   > > actors are Native American, not Maya, even though the film is entirely   
   > > spoken in Maya. The Yucatan Peninsula has a thriving dramatic   
   > > community. The Mayan language is the second most important tongue after   
   > > Spanish. Millions of people speak it in Mexico. So why didn't Gibson   
   > > use Maya actors? Maybe because he didn't want to work with people who   
   > > might have challenged his insult to their culture, and perceived it to   
   > > be exactly what it was -- yet another example of gross cultural   
   > > imperialism, in which the victors write history to justify their own   
   > > atrocities.   
   > >   
   >   
   #  I'm not a great fan of Mel Gibson, apart from the Mad Max trilogy,   
   viewing most of his recent efforts as being little more than pro-RC   
   propaganda, one way or another.  Haven't seen Patriot or Braveheart, but   
   assume they have a go at Protestant Britain (a long-time irritant of the   
   Church).   
     In Passion of the Christ, the flogging was excessive, but his latest film   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)