Tweet

EMAIL

PRINT

Comments (0)

Related articles and links |  1 of 4

Everybody knows that Mel Gibson made a fortune from The Passion of The Christ—much of it coming from Christians. Now everybody is finding out what Gibson has done with some of that money: He's made a movie even more violent than The Passion.

Apocalypto is about the decline of an ancient Mayan culture. Like The Nativity Story, it concerns the protection of a pregnant woman in a time of oppression and violence. And, like the upcoming adventure film Children of Men, it's also a furiously violent chase movie, one that barely stops to let viewers catch their breath. It's so intense, even people who don't like to read subtitles will be caught up in what may become a nominee for the Best Foreign Language Film award at the Oscars. The dialogue is spoken in Mayan dialects. Yes, Gibson continues to demonstrate that he's a stickler for details.

Speaking of details, Apocalypto proves that Gibson is still "passion"-ately interested in the details of dismemberment. While Christian film critics are coming away with differing impressions and interpretations of the film, they're all commenting on the relentless violence.

In his review, Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies) gives the film 2.5 stars (out of 4) and says, "Despite the film's two-hour-plus running time, the characters are never particularly developed; Gibson is working with archetypes, not real people, and he could just as easily have named his characters Family Man and Pregnant Wife."

Commenting on the violence, Chattaway calls Gibson "a sadist who rubs our faces in cinematic violence, and he is also a masochist who figures the best way to deal with the violence he sees in the world is to accept it and absorb it somehow. But where The Passion gave his admirers an easy out—between Jesus taking the pain and his enemies inflicting it, we side with the pain-taking, no question—Apocalypto is harder to pin down."

Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) comes to a similar conclusion. "Gibson is a consummate filmmaker, and the action is never less than riveting. Yet as the film repeatedly ratchets up the wince factor beyond what seems necessary or appropriate, it's hard not to feel that suffering has been reduced to spectacle. The Passion offered a redemptive context for its brutality that seems lacking here. Gibson is still seeking life amid death, but the balance is off."

Christian Hamaker (Crosswalk) says Gibson "gives his detractors plenty of additional evidence to bolster their claim that he has an unseemly obsession with violence. What's missing this time is a larger context for the graphic images to which Apocalypto viewers are subject. No central theological debate, as in The Passion of the Christ. No ties to European ancestry and national pride, as in Braveheart. No, Apocalypto is a savage, repellent film that raises serious questions about Gibson's interest in the worst kinds of human suffering."

Anthony Sacramone (First Things) defends the movie: "Much attention has been paid to Gibson's allusions to contemporary events as the controlling referent for Apocalypto. … In any event, the film works on its own terms, regardless. So whatever you think of Mel Gibson, his beliefs, or his drunken rant, give Apocalypto a chance. It's not a question of whether Gibson deserves it; if you love cinema, then you deserve it."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says that in spite of the fact that Apocalypto is more violent than The Passion, "[T]he ambitious cinematic work demonstrates Gibson's talent as a filmmaker to tell a story through strong visuals." But he concludes, "If [Gibson] is trying to say something about the self-destructiveness of societies and the role of hope in the cyclical march of civilizations—and that's not at all clear—what comes across on-screen is more sanguinary than sanguine."

next page... |  1 of 4

December (Web-only) 2006, Vol. 50