And, I'm back

Right, boys and girls, avid readers, all disgruntled.

I'm thinking that all of you are extremely disappointed in not having read any of my wonderful entries in what is almost a full half year. Let me tell you, it was not without trepidation that I opened this site, half expecting the site to have passed onto someone who would do it more justice. Alas, no! It waited patiently for me and I think is looking forward to some new feed.

So, what shall I talk about in this year? Well, I shall begin by explaining that I am currently in the middle of an arduous process at the end of which I shall have written a full script. Now, I'm not saying it'll be any good, but it will be done nevertheless. That is the plan. And no, I won't tell you what it's about. Go and see it in the cinema. Or at least ask me to give you a copy when I've finished it.

What's been pissing me off lately then? Hmm, there's really too much to put down here, and too many opinions to try and set down on this electronic paper of sorts. But, well, within the last half an hour, I have been particularly unimpressed with this article: http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1986697,00.html. It's about 'Apocalypto', the new Mel Gibson film, which I saw last night (at the Coronet, Notting Hill). I saw the film, and very silently I shall whisper that I was something of a closet Mel Gibson fan after I saw the 'Passion of the Christ' which I actually thought was a very effective film, but have to say that I was disappointed by it. I won't go into a full review here, but, in short, it starts off well, and then goes downhill (if you need a point, it's when they get captured and taken to the town) and then culminates in being laughable. Not a film I'd ask for my money back after, but not one that I expect to be top of any league table.

Back to my original subject - this article. As a predicate to any other points I would like to say that it's a given that Mel Gibson is a well-known idiot, and anyone who has a tirade (about the Jews) like that deserves no more attention than Sean Penn, probably at the opposite end of that idiot-spectrum. Still, the guy makes successful films (Sean Penn seemingly less so these days), and you have to give him some kudos for that, even if you think that the people who come to them in droves are right-wing neocon hard-line Christian anti-abortionists, and anyone else who is deserving of a hyphen or word-amalgamation (that's including verboamalgamationists). His subject matter is always a little bit narrow, but then so is Clint Eastwood's these days and nobody seems to care (the Hemmingwayan 'lose with valour' kinda guy). He injects a bit of generic music, graphic raw visuals and good ol' testosterone into his heroes and so it makes for some red-blooded-sans-intellect fun. This was the case with Braveheart, now Apocalypto and for me, the Passion also.

With that out of the way, I then pause to think about this - why is everyone still so convinced that Mel Gibson's films go more than skin-deep? This guy who writes the said article is really stretched if he thinks that it's all an anti-semitic tirade (part II, no less), or even if he thinks that there is anything especially symbolic about the ending. What is interesting, is really to what depths Mel Gibson has to plunder to get a story out of his epic. Ok, I think there's something documenting the fact that there was an eclipse prior to Cortes' arrival in Mexico that compounded the natives' belief that the men were deities (not too sure about this one, though), but then this about the Mayans, not Aztecs, and so it would have been the conquest of the Yucatan which occurred earlier and has no such connotations (I'm still wondering whether the bearded man is actually anyone imparticular). Also, as far as I know, the Mayans were more or less an obscure civilisation by that point (especially when compared to the Aztecs). Not only that, but I think that the practise of human sacrifice was introduced by the Olmecs after they conquered and imposed themselves onto Mayan civilisation (in old Mayan culture, the king would actually slit his scrotum to fertilise the soil - the Olmecs preferred the less painful alternative to that one). However, about these points, I may be talking out of my arse and I'm having to refer to knowledge that I had about 4-5 years ago when I actually travelled around Mexico and Guatemala and I think if all else was fine with the film, I'd accept the Hollywood anachronisms.

I apologise for the lack of a clear argument on my part here thus far, and I will be more organised henceforth: my only real problems with film are that it's gratuitously gory and gratuitously religious. The former because some of the violence, brutality, and above all, the blood level and head count are just unnecessary. Not only does it stray into the 'Kill Bill' school (just so I make it clear, I think Kill Bill, part one, is one of my least favourite films of all time) of featuring violence for only its own sake and making it nothing more than a stupid caricature of actual bodily harm, it just removes any reality to the brutality (for god's sake, the guy's lung is probably punctured in the last 5 minutes of the film!). I know better than to ask for realism in a Hollywood action film, but I thought we'd moved on from the 80's...

As for the latter, I have a problem with the natives offering such 'Christian' prayers, as for example, when the woman in the river asks for the children's protection. It's as if he's said to himself: "ok, now, try to make the story relative to all the Christians in the audience as the middle-American mothers could empathise, because they'd probably ask Jesus/St Mary for the same thing in her shoes." It annoys me because I thought the point was to try and make a film about a different reality and set of values (which is why I thought the first part is so effective).

As for things I did like in the film, ok, I won't go into it too much, but I thought it's critique of organised religion and civilisation was well-done if not particularly clever or innovative. It also was a good homage to some good films of the past (Last of the Mohicans, Predator, probably Kill Bill, Aguirre, and others that I'm not too sure about), though there is always a fine line between borrowing and ripping-off, isn't there? Well, I'd put it down to homage, because I'm nice like that.

Right, after that little circumnavigation of the initial topic, in reply to the Vicar who wrote that (a) god-awful attempt at criticism, (b) self-serving bangwaggon-jumping, or (c) useless self-promotion and scaremongering (I just can't decide which it is), I'd say that he perhaps picks up on Gibson's ignorance and lack of empathy with other cultures, but to elevate the guy to such ranks of ability as a evil symbolist theologian is really an elasticated argument to say the least. Write a better article on something that deserves serious academic attention, not such a poor example of a plunder of a whole history of a region to suit a film. However, I would agree that it is as anti-Semitic as the Passion - I think both films are weak examples of anti-Semitism, but strong examles of a prejudice for the ascendancy of Christianity (which particular strand I cannot say) over every other religion. In line with this, I expect the next film to tell the story of Buddha, when he comes to earth as an angel eager to kill all those that have transgressed his master, who works in mysterious ways.

Hmm, as you'd expect, looking over this ramble, I need to get back into the swing of things as regards this blog-writing thing, but well, my rant is over. For now...