XPost: alt.mexico, alt.movies
From: philopha@tpg.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.
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
