An Apocalypse of Death

In one of the most obvious examples of a three-act film I've ever seen, Apocalypto basically moved from peace to death to chase.

The first act was not quiet and tranquil. Rather it was filled with fear and foreboding of what was to come. The second act was horrific. People who have seen the movie will talk about the gore...and there was certainly a lot of gore. But for me it wasn't the blood and guts that made it so hard to watch, but rather the brutality of the natives' lives and the Mayan culture's complete disregard for the sanctity of life. Although seeing someone's throat cut is pretty bad, seeing an infant child picked up by the leg and then thoughtlessly cast aside was much worse for me.

As things built to a climax in the second act, I felt like leaving. For me, it was like watching The Exorcist. Gibson was displaying a culture of death and not using camera tricks to hide it's brutality, but instead forced his audience to see what the natural result is when the rights of an individual are sacrificed for the desires of the many. Gibson used iconic imagery that I'm sure was meant to invoke demonic forces at work within the culture of death, and he did so effectively. I was certainly so overwhelmed that I almost walked out, not being able to stomach being in the presence of that kind of culture anymore.

What kept me in my seat was a sense of trust. Never had I trusted a filmmaker more than I did during the end of the second act of Apocalypto. To remain in my seat I needed to cling to my belief that Gibson is what he says he is, a faithful Christian. Because I knew that a thoughtful and faithful Christian would most likely not leave the movie with the people of death winning the day. That is not to say that a Christian must make movies with happy endings...but it is to say that a Christian would not make a movie which leads the audience to believe that death has the final say in things.

Once again, Scott Derrickson's article, Behind the Lens proved it's worthiness by helping me interpret this film correctly (this, btw, should be required reading for every Christian who goes to movies). When speaking of horror films, Derrickson says, those films "offer a moral worldview in which murder is evil and terrifying, not stylish and trivial." This was so true about Gibson's film. Because this film was made by Mel Gibson and not Quentin Tarantino I knew that the horror I was experiencing was not cool and glamorized, but meant to force me to see what an unholy mindset can lead to. And Gibson did not let me down.

The third act was thrilling and functioned as a perfect story arc for what had proceeded it. Order in the world is affirmed as a higher power makes its claims on the situation here on the ground. Furthermore, salvation does come at the end, and from a most un-PC and therefore surprising source.

And it is this point that I have to address as I conclude. The media likes to talk about this film as anti-Bush...and I totally see that, in a way. But when you pull back and see the wide scope of what Gibson is brilliantly doing on screen, it isn't as much of an attack on Bush as it is on those in our society which do not value the sanctity of all life and claim that all cultures are morally equivalent. As the surprise ending makes abundantly clear, Gibson believes that although all cultures are flawed, some are inherently better than others. This is the Bush doctrine, isn't it? That we as Americans are morally righteous when we attempt to force others to accept democratic governance? I would imagine that although the movie might give Bush good reason to pause, it ultimately would serve to bolster him against his PC-motivated critics.