William Booth wrote a brilliant critique of Gibson’s film for the Washington Post, titled Culture Shocker: Scholars Say Mel Gibson’s Action Flick Sacrifices the Maya Civilization to Hollywood. The December 9, 2006 article reveals what archaeologists and scholars of the Maya are saying about the Hollywood version of Mesoamerican history - and by all accounts, Apocalypto gets failing grades. To read the full article, visit the Washington Post, in the meantime, here are a few excerpts:
“Apocalypto depicts the Maya as a super-cruel, psycho-sadistic society on the skids, a ghoulscape engaged in widespread slavery, reckless sewage treatment and bad rave dancing, with a real lust for human blood. Think: Caligula of the Yucatan. Follow the bouncing heads! This is a problem because most scholars, while acknowledging the violence of this pre-Columbian society, universally applaud the Maya as among the New World’s most sophisticated and subtle civilizations. They were, especially at their height around A.D. 800, remarkable Stone Agers who erected avant-garde cities and towering pyramids in the jungles of Mexico and Central America, created sumptuous art, practiced a precise astronomy and (yes, there’s more) developed not only a written language, but a heady cosmology of time and space, built around a complex, ordered society of maize, kings and gods. The Maya flourished for a thousand years. They were winners.
But Apocalypto’s focus on the more, shall we say, extreme hobbies of the Maya (i.e., removal of still operating body parts) is giving the community of Maya researchers the fits. The archaeologists are shouting: slander! They’re circulating statements and editorials and e-mails. ‘It is a shocking movie to us,’ says Stephen Houston, professor of anthropology at Brown University, and like the other Mayanists quoted in this article, a scientist who has spent years excavating sites in Mexico and Central America. (…) The main gripe, says Houston, is that Apocalypto will make a bad impression on the general public. ‘For millions of people this might be their first glimpse of the Maya,’ he says. ‘This is the impression that is going to last. But this is Mel Gibson’s Maya. This is Mel Gibson’s sadism. This is not the Maya we know.’ Some of the scientists have seen the movie, others have watched the trailers, read reviews or summaries. David Stuart, professor of Mesoamerican art and writing at the University of Texas, saw a rough cut of the film with Gibson and penned an unpublished editorial with Houston that suggests Gibson’s Maya are so evil that they were “a civilization . . . that deserves to die.”
Arthur Demarest, anthropology professor at Vanderbilt University, says, ‘I don’t care about some minor historical inaccuracies. That’s Hollywood. What I’m very worried about is how the Maya themselves will perceive the film.’ As Demarest points out, the Maya are not a extinct lineage. Their descendants, 6 million or more, are still living in Mexico and Central America. (The film does not open south of the border until next year). ‘I can promise you that there will be a massive repudiation of this film, not only as a work of fiction, but as a systematic and willful misrepresentation of the Maya,’ says David Freidel, archaeology professor at Southern Methodist University.”
The multi-million dollar promotional campaign waged for Apocalypto by Disney, the film’s distributor, has made much of the fact that Gibson employed Richard Hansen as the film’s consultant. An expert in Maya studies and a professor of anthropology at Idaho State University, Hansen helped promote the movie when he appeared on TV with Gibson on ABC’s Primetime special with Diane Sawyer (Disney owns ABC). William Booth’s Washington Post article makes note of the fact that Hansen is the president of the Foundation for Anthropological Research and Environmental Studies, which does preservation work and study in Guatemala. Interestingly enough, “Gibson, a generous contributor to the group, now serves on its board of directors.”
But lately, even Hansen has been distancing himself from Apocalypto. Booth’s Washington Post article quotes the anthropologist as saying, “there were things I didn’t like that they went ahead and did anyway,” and that “there was a lot of artistic license taken.” In the greatest of understatements, Hansen acknowledges the depiction of endless bloody human sacrifice by the Maya in the film does “give the feeling they’re a sadistic lot,” and adds, “I’m a little apprehensive about how the contemporary Maya will take it.”
[ A detail from the famous Maya murals of Bonampak. In Apocalypto, the mural was altered to show human sacrifice. ]
Zachary X. Hruby, Ph.D., is a Maya expert, lecturer and research affiliate in the department of anthropology at UC Riverside. He divides his time between Southern California and Guatemala. National Geographic asked Hruby to pre-screen Apocalypto for them, and he gave it a thumbs down, saying, “The film feeds into old stereotypes about the Maya being savages. If it’s a hit, it could have a lasting effect on the way the public views the ancient Maya, and by extension, the modern Maya.” Hruby notes that in Apocalypto, “They are showing murals from the time of Christ, and saying that they were current in 1524. In the trailer for the film they actually repaint the famous Bonampak murals to show the king holding a human heart, instead of making a simple hand gesture.” Hruby’s comments are to be found on the National Geographic website in an article titled, Apocalypto Tortures the Facts, and in Apocalypto: A New Beginning or a Step Backward? published on mesoweb.com, a website dedicated to the scholarly exploration of the ancient cultures of Mexico and Central America. Here’s an excerpt from the mesoweb.com article, which everyone should read in its entirety:
“Although this film will undoubtedly create interest in the field of Maya archaeology by way of its spectacular reconstructions and beautiful jungle scenes, the lasting impression of Maya and other Pre-Columbian civilizations is this: The Maya were simple jungle bands or bloodthirsty masses duped by false religions, that their mighty but misguided civilization fell into ruin as a result, and their salvation arrived with the coming of Christian beliefs saddled on the backs of Spanish conquistadors. As we archaeologists struggle to accurately reconstruct ancient Maya society, obstructed by their decimation via Western diseases, destruction of their books, art, and history by Spanish friars, not to mention their subjugation and exploitation by the conquistadors, films such as Apocalypto represent a significant disparagement of that process. Further, inaccurate, irresponsible representations by Hollywood of indigenous peoples as amoral, inhuman, or uncivilized can only lead to greater misunderstanding and strife in contemporary society. This may be particularly important in a modern world where common ground is increasingly difficult to come by.”