Ha habido gran cantidad de críticas hacía la última película de Mel Gibson, Apocalypto . Se discute sobre cómo presenta a la civilización maya y si Mel quiso hacer un film para mostrar un poco sobre la historia de una de las culturas mesoamericanas precolombinas o un film que vendiera sin importar en absoluto la historia de la misma.
En la mayoría de los comentarios que he visto en la internet, la película es fuertemente criticada. Y no es que no me quiera quedar atrás, pero pues quiero dar mi punto de vista. Un punto de vista simple.
Como seguramente hay algunos que no la han visto try not to mention about the part where the UFO appears and fucks everyone but the English.
The criticism I've seen can be divided into good and bad (almost no regular). Technically, the movie is good, you can not expect less of a Hollywood production (although the scene where they burn the huts is very poor, how strange that the fire does not spread and maintained in a line, the tanks are almost gas, haha). Environmentally, we should make an assessment of the effect on natural resources where they filmed, the production of this type involves hundreds of thousands of people who not only come, film and go. Historically, very bad. Apocalypto has many historical inconsistencies, for example, the average height of the Maya was 1.50 m (and big heads) and in the film we see Maya sucked tall and well, if that were true, I would measure six feet and out mister world ( and not be so stubborn, xD), the Maya practiced the grave and not (sic) composting (using organic material to fertilize naturally) human as shown in an impressive scene of the film.
Francisco Rosado May says apocalypto is not for people ready and critical mind ( a ) , and it is true, because then you do not understand the movie, you spend doing tantrums. Nevertheless, the film brings a good message: mastering the fears and confront them, but Mel has invented the Mayan rambo, says Colin Ricardo Pacheco in his note ( 2 ) . Apocalypto is one of those movies that cause so much controversy to break sales records. It is a formula commonly used and very efficient. I saw Christ's passion, but I remember how of Father Amaro was strongly criticized by the church, and what this sold?
Initially yes I was somewhat annoyed and angry because I do think it is exaggerated and distorted the concept that was quite the sacrifice for our ancestors, plus it just shows that. Omitted too many contributions made by the Maya to the human species. They were good farmers, architects, invented the zero, and so on. All this is not even mentioned in the movie and then just go to a bloodthirsty Mayans.
The Hollywood movie is just not pretend to see a documentary film produced by them, the United States has no culture, the little that they had cornered to extinguish (RGA) So do not expect that strives to teach the world about the cultures of other places. But I think it should require producers, directors, writers, etc. clarify it, especially if these films will be presented in such countries as Mexico, where the average book reading is a week (yes, the book weekly , those novels that sell 5 pesos newsstands), in countries where the culture and history are not a priority for its population.
So I join the writer Jorge Miguel Cocom Pech Mayan ( 3 ) , many countrymen and descendants Maya. Mel Gibson should clarify who would not represent the Mayan civilization in his film, which only took as a basis for filing a Hollywood formula. If not, then must apologize for the strain that has caused in our culture.
And to conclude I throw a phrase that would be good for promotional Gandhi: If you want to learn history, not read, better run Hollywood movies . Not true, you have to read!, At least wikipedia, lol, here we discuss the articles. I send you a hug and leave you more links with more criticism: ( 4 ) (5 ) ( 6) (7 ) ( 8) (9 ).
Guatsa Steppenwolf
0 comments:
Post a Comment