let me start by saying - ok. mel gibson is clearly a flawed human being. and he does have his own world views, bigoted they may me. and through 'auteur theory' this would in fact permeate into his work. apocalypto is a flawed film. but i really enjoyed it.
i had a bit of as debrief on the film when i first saw it, about a week ago. its not as fresh in my memory any more.
you know what
i just liked it. i like snakes on a plane. i like godard. my opinion isnt right or wrong. i just enjoyed it. and yeah it was violent. dang, i like friday the 13th too. apocalypto may not have been going for something profound. i felt it was driven by mythological narratives that everyone knows, like superheroes or moses. i didnt go in there expecting historical accuracy or even a good film. i was suprised when it was a richly cinematic experience. no film could ever be factual or historically accurate, or adequately represent an entire civilization in two hours. and still be marketable as a film.
so it becomes entertainment. myth story, heroes and villains. and on that level, on the most basic level of cinema experience, it worked. it was a good story, told with suspense, kept me interested. thats a whole lot more than the da vinci code.
the argument is kinda fading. i really enjoyed apocalypto, perhaps because it appealed to my desire to have pulp cinema after eating good chinese food.
high culture or low culture. i dont care. i really enjoyed it. thats it.