CalvinDude.com

How does fear affect a man?  And what drives men to act on anything?

These two questions are at the heart of the philosophy found in Apocalypto.  And they are inherently linked in the story too.

Obviously, I don’t want to give away too many spoilers and so I’ll have to be a little vague in spots.  When the fleeing Mayans first interact with Jaguar Paw, JP’s father (Flint Sky) tells him that those Mayans are infected with fear.  And fear spreads like a disease to others.  Flink Sky warns JP not to let fear into the village.

Once the Aztecs show up and invade the village, JP is forced to confront his fear at numerous times and in many different ways.  If he cannot master his fear, he knows he’ll be killed.  Even worse, if he dies the rest of his family dies (for reasons I won’t get into since I don’t want to ruin the movie for you).

This actually brings up an interesting sort of a paradox (one not explicitly in the movie itself, but one I’ve thought about).  Fear for one’s own safety can be overwhelmed by fear for another’s (e.g. your family) safety.  Fearing for their safety can give you courage to face your own fears.  Ironically, the “couragous” action is still based on fear in such a circumstance.

In any case, fear is obviously a powerful motivator (or de-motivator, depending on the circumstances).  What else drives people to act?

The village storyteller gives us insight into that.  He explains how man became so powerful in the first place.  All the animals gathered together with him.  Man said, “I want to see perfectly” so the vulture gave man his sight.  Man said, “I want to be strong” so the jaguar gave man his strength.  Etc.  At the end, man left with the strengths of all the animals and he left on his way.  Then the owl warned the other animals that man would not be satisfied because there was still a hole inside of him.  He would keep taking and taking to try to fill that hole, until finally the world would have to say, “I have nothing more to give.  You have taken it all.”

This, in a nutshell, provides the overarching philosophical standpoint in the movie.  Man continues to seek to fill some void inside of himself by taking from nature.  But nature cannot provide the answer to that problem.  Indeed, by seeking the cure in nature man can only destroy nature by continually taking from it.

This provides the greatest source of fear in the movie too.  The Aztecs were afraid because they couldn’t fill that hole inside each of them.  They lived in a world of debauchery and untold wealth (for the region and time), yet they were empty people.  So they went out and captured Mayans for human sacrifices in an attempt to appease the gods and give themselves a purpose.  But when it did not appear the gods were appeased, the Aztecs became even more frightened and sought even more sacrificial victims.

The movie ultimately gives no resolution to this problem on the screen.  Indeed, Gibson doesn’t really want a resolution in it because this movie is his warning to America that we are becoming the Aztecs: full of debauchery, untold wealth, and empty meaninglessness.

Of course, the above scenario does have a cure: Jesus Christ.  And given Gibson’s Catholicism, that’s obviously an unspoken assumption going into the movie.

Ultimatley, this movie works great at showing the “bad news” portion of the Gospel.  This movie demonstrates human depravity in a myriad of ways.  It shows the emptiness of seeking to fulfill one’s life from nature by taking everything you can get.  It demonstrates the need for something other than yourself.  So in that regard, this movie is a great door opener for later evangelism.  One sees the dark side of humanity explicitly for what it is in the movie, and without confronting that no one will ever see the need for the “good news” of the Gospel.

I just got back from watching Apocalypto.  Since it’s rather late (or rather early, depending on how you define it), I’ll leave the philosophical discussion until later on this morning or afternoon, after I’ve gotten some sleep.  However, I wanted to put down some quick thoughts about the movie on the storytelling level.

First: Yes, it is a very violent movie.  Lots of blood and gore.  It’s roughly equivalent to Braveheart or Black Hawk Down, just with more of it.  However, having studied the Aztec culture, what the movie shows is nowhere near the actual level of brutality that occured during the human sacrifices.

Second: This movie proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that “Hollywood talent” is vastly over-rated.  There wasn’t a single character who felt out of character the entire movie.  Everyone acted brilliantly, and that’s something you can’t say about most “Hollywood” movies.  Put it this way.  There’s no way that Brad Pitt, Kevin Spacey, or Sean Penn could have delivered the performance that Rudy Youngblood did.

Third: Was the movie Oscar-level?  Yes and no.  Yes in that Youngblood ought to get a nomination for best actor, if the universe was fair.  But no, it wasn’t a “Best Picture” movie.  Since everyone acted so well, a Best Director would probably be fair, but after Gibson’s drunken incident we know that’ll never happen.  As to the story, it’s mixed.  And that brings me to the fourth point.

Fourth: The characters in the story were compelling, but the entire process felt like I had to suspend disbelief a little too much.  Yes, all movies require this to a great extent because a story relies on too many factors that just simply don’t occur in real life (except under exceedingly odd situations).  The story was good at capturing the historical context of what happened during Aztec raids and subsequent human sacrifices; but the story of Jaguar Paw stretched credibility a little thin in places.  Furthermore, without giving away spoilers, I found it really easy to figure out who was going to die and when (at least of the Mayan characters–the Aztec deaths were better done; but then the auidence wasn’t led to care about them and so their order didn’t matter).

Fifth: The camera movement was the worst part of this movie.  Yes, I know that directors like to use a handheld camera for the action shots.  But the camera shake, jumpy movements, and blurry effects left a lot of actions shots just plain confusing.  Even more so, it was irritating.  Thus, the camera actually undermined the story instead of enhancing the motion.

So, how would I rate the movie?  A solid B, weak B+.  Will I buy it?  Possibly.  But it’s not going to be on the top of my list of movies to get when it comes out on DVD.  Worth watching?  If you don’t mind looking at “dark” pictures (e.g. human depravity) and violence with abundant (although not inappropriate) gore, it’s definitely worth watching.

Anyway, as I said later on I’ll provide my take on the philosophy of the pic.  For now, it’s time to catch some Zs.