Marking the release of Apocalyto in the UK, Radio 4's Today programme interviewed media luvvies Cosmo Landesman, film critic with the Sunday Times, and Dr Mark Horton, reader in Archeology at Bristol University.

It seems having tracked much of the reaction to Apocalypto that critics broadly fall in to one of two camps. Some (usually film reviewers) have tended to concentrate more on the dramatic and visual impact of the film and have tended to be positive. While others (usually academics) have pointed to the historical inaccuracies portrayed in the film and have tended to be negative in their assessment of the film. It's a kind of battle between entertainment and enlightenment.

This morning's slot on Today was fairly representative of this debate. I thought though, it was very telling when Cosmo Landesman said the following:


That Hollywood takes "liberties with events" is undoubtedly true. However, the point is that Hollywood almost always takes liberties with history when it thinks it can, i.e. it's history that it thinks its viewers (particularly US viewers) don't know about or value. It also leaves Hollywood wide open to the accusation that it's superimposing its values over and above the people it's depicting. When Mel Gibson says:

It's not a huge leap to think that the film is suggesting that the Mayas almost brought the Spanish conquest on themselves. This accusation is all the more clear from Mel's truncated version of Maya history. The Classic Maya period (250-950AD) finished a long time before the first recorded contact between Europeans and the Maya (1502). Historically, the two events are not connected- so why should Gibson attempt to connect them in the film?

But equally it has to be the role of academics and others who know differently to point out these inaccuracies. It was interesting that Landesman got himself tangled up in his own argument. He fended off Horton's charge that Gibson's portrayal of the Maya was as a 'barbaric' people. "Not true" countered Landesman, "because the film is set in a particular time in Maya history during the period of decadence...". This slip demonstrates the difficulty that Landesman glossed over: either the film is set in a particular time in history or it isn't. Either an element within the film is imaginary or it isn't. It's educational value depends on it- as Mel Gibson added:


All in all this seems to suggest that Gibson's not entirely clear that he's in the business of myth making. Many a filmmaker will cross back and forth over the line between what's based in reality and what isn't- we expect that- but we also expect those who know, to point out where the line actually is. Unfortunately it's rare that a filmmaker will do this- and Gibson's no exception. Which is a shame because that way we might get enlightenment as well as entertainment for a change from a trip to the cinema.

Update (14-01-2007)

Mel did his homework. In an interview in the Sunday Times Mel Gibson is quoted as saying the following:

It sounds like Mel is basing this on contemporary records written by Spanish colonizers. Not many others seem to share Mel's trust in the authenticity of these observations. These were after all, many of the very same people like Diego de Landa, who were on a well organised mission of burning and destroying Maya culture in the 1500s onwards. In a bitter irony they are now cited as the authors of the rare written evidence of Maya culture at this time.

---

Background: Judge for yourself

-You can view different clips from Apocalypto here.

-You can read and check different links/reviews about Apocalypto here including reaction from Guatemalans.

In addition, it's certainly worth reading up about the controversy around theories of the collapse of the Classic Maya period. Bloggers El Blog Diablogico and John Hawkes both point to the similarities between Apocalypto's subtext and Jared Diamond's theory of "Environmental Collapse and the End of Civilization".

Larry C. Peterson and Gerald H. Haug have written a concise overview in the American Scientist magazine of the case that a series of multi-year droughts contributed to the collapse of the Mayas. Anabel Ford is an interesting counter to this case focusing on droughts, by suggesting we are asking the wrong questions about the collapse of the Mayas. She contends that we could significantly improve our understanding of the Mayas if we are able to discard a very 'Western' assessment of the evidence.

Finally, this kind of leads to what often goes unsaid in these debates: so often Guatemalans have to put up with people from outside- ourselves included- pontificating about them. A little more humility on the part of those on the outside could go a long way :-)

Photo above is of Tikal, Guatemala by Julia Rubinic.

This is a new documentary 'En Toute Solidarité' just out on international accompaniment in Guatemala in French and Spanish. It's produced by Les Productions Réalités Cachées in association with the Projet Accompagnement Québec-Guatemala (PAQG) in Canada and the Coordination of International Accompaniment in Guatemala. It directed by Nicolas Bergeron. Nicolas worked as an accompanier in 2005 and 2006 with PAQG and NISGUA. Here's an excerpt in French from a piece he wrote about accompaniment on the PAQG website: