By Rob Schmidt
Blue Corn Comics

How stereotypical is Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto"?  Very, according to film and cultural critics:

The creepy, dead-eyed king looks into the eyes of every gibbering
victim. The fat wives and fatter children laugh. The cackling high
priests are stoned on the delirious gore. The baying crowd scream for
more. (Brian Orndorf, 12/6/06)

There is the mandatory evil witch doctor and the obese prince. There
is even a scene when the screaming populace is overcome with fear when
the moon eclipses the sun–as if the world's greatest mathematicians
and astronomers were ignorant of such a predictable event. (Doug
George-Kanentiio, 12/19/06)

Gibson's portrayal of a fervent and orgiastic mob completely violates
what we know about Maya propriety in ritual behavior. Many modern
Maya rituals, such as processions or prayers, are deliberate and
serious affairs.

The treatment of sacrifice is also inaccurate and misleading.   Much of what we see recorded by the Maya is a form of sacrifice known as auto-sacrifice–self-inflicted bloodletting involving piercing ear
lobes, fingers, tongues and penises. (Marcello A. Canuto, 12/15/06)

[D]espite Gibson's vile portrayal of the Maya as a macabre cult of
deranged killers straight out of "Apocalypse Now," there is no
evidence that the Mayan people ever practiced widespread human
sacrifice, and they certainly didn't target the innocent
hunter-gatherers and horticulturalists Gibson chooses to portray as
the victims of a Mayan death cult.

Gibson knows better. He studied the terrain in depth and had no
practical limit to the funds he could expend on research. His
portrayal is a conscious lie, one he uses to justify the premise that
the Mayan city states collapsed because they deserved to collapse, and
that they deserved to be replaced by a "superior" culture in the
genocide known as the Conquest. (Juan Santos, 12/8/06)

The message? The end is near and the savior has come. Gibson's
efforts at authenticity of location and language might, for some
viewers, mask his blatantly colonial message that the Maya needed
saving because they were rotten at the core. Using the decline of
Classic urbanism as his backdrop, Gibson communicates that there was
absolutely nothing redeemable about Maya culture, especially elite
culture which is depicted as a disgusting feast of blood and excess.

But in "Apocalypto," no mention is made of the achievements in science
and art, the profound spirituality and connection to agricultural
cycles, or the engineering feats of Maya cities. Instead, Gibson
replays, in glorious big-budget technicolor, an offensive and racist
notion that Maya people were brutal to one another long before the
arrival of Europeans and thus they deserve, in fact they needed,
rescue. This same idea was used for 500 years to justify the
subjugation of Maya people and it has been thoroughly deconstructed
and rejected by Maya intellectuals and community leaders throughout
the Maya area today. (Traci Ardren, 12/5/06)

After you watch this film you may be wrongfully convinced that it was
the Mayan who stole land from your ancestors; you may begin to think
that it was the Mayan who burned the villages of your ancestors; you
may begin to believe that it was the Mayan who tied up Indian men and
raped their wives while they watched powerlessly; you may be convinced
that the Mayan were the culprits who brought smallpox to decimate the
indigenous American populations; you will probably be convinced that
Indians taught Europeans racism and racial slavery; you will be lied
to while watching this movie, and you will mistakenly be thankful that
Europeans came and saved your ancestors from their own demise. (Leo
Killsback, 12/27/06)

You can read all the criticism of Apocalypto at
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/apclypto.htm