View single post by Fuller

Posted: Mon Jun 18th, 2007 09:53 pm

Quote

Full Topic

Fuller
E Pluribus Unum

Joined:	Mon Oct 23rd, 2006
Location:	USA
Posts:	249
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Just watched it yesterday. I rarely watch dvds with the director's comments playing but with this one I had to watch it again and do just that. The movie was visually stunning. Casting, costumes, special effects, native language of Yucatec Maya being used, the set in the jungle and the set design near the temple, etc...No need for the subtitles to know what was going on even. Some of the actors had never even seen a movie before and so to see them perform with such animation was amazing. Mel chose to tell the story with only captured warriors being used for sacraficial needs (bones of children have been found). He chose to spare the audience from any more violence than what was shown, and from the standpoint of many scholars who study that particular civilization know they were even more brutal. It was thought that Spanish explorers were exagerating the methods and the numbers of sacrafices. Through hieroglyphics and bones examined near temples, they weren't all that far off as far as methods go. Anywho, mixed in was a story of honor, love and commitment. I loved Braveheart and The Patriot (although not directed by him) so I of course had to watch this one. As far as questions surrounding it? Don't know if his drunken comments helped or hurt the film. Also, Mayas were affraid of how others would now view them since they were shown at a point in their history when disease and extreme violence were most prominent within their culture. Other nit-pickers noted that Mel chose to have his actors run, walk, move like "white" people. If he was going to dress them up and make them talk like natives, he better make them move like natives. I'm not to sure how Mayas moved but I suppose Mel didn't want things too foreign for the audience to grasp? Loved it. If it makes people want to go out and study the history more like I do, great!

Fuller