Yesterday, we had a good discussion about Apocalypto which Ben and I both saw recently. Gene reiterated his distaste for criticism when it establishes a certain position of judgement. I was arguing that analysis can be good when it is a matter of discernment, of trying to understand how authority works.
Ben said that my comment about the film—"the most exciting National Geographic special ever made"—was condescending. That's not how I meant it. But I then realized that the "National Geographic" comment was alluding to something that was bothering me. I think it has to do with the way that Apocalypto uses signifiers of authenticity to seduce us. It has all of the National Geographic stereotypes: bare breasted women, happy natives, exotic customs. The cinematography itself uses the grammar of documentary footage. Plus it's shot on all-real, no CGI sets. Then there's the native language subtitled in English. It's not enough for Gibson to shoot an exciting film. He also wants it to be real.
In my thinking it would have been more honest to stylize the movie. Maybe crush the blacks and whites a bit. Make it a bit more noir, or a bit prettier. Romanticize it. That way, the presentation of the film would match its content more closely. This wouldn't make it a better film. But I guess I feel it would be more honest. It's a matter of where one's authority comes from. Apocalypto wants to establish a certain kind of credibility, as if we're gaining an insider's look at the decline of a civilization. Instead, what we are really shown is a romanticized, outsider's view of a culture used primarily as a backdrop for a well-crafted adventure.
No comments:
Post a Comment