Vehige: Apocalypto

My reply to Woodward's response to my criticism of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto....

Woodward sees in the Mayan setting a symbolic parallel to our own culture. I can't argue with that; I think he's right. But that's my problem with the story—all of its meaning is found in everything but the story of Jaguar Paw.

My own aesthetical sensibilities (if you can call them that) tell me that in good fiction the meaning of the story is found in the character—either in his own growth and transformation, or in his own steadfastness to what he believes to be true. Ben Hur is a great movie because Judah ben Hur undergoes a profound character transformation, and A Man for All Seasons is a great movie because Thomas More remains true to his principles.

Now you can argue—the way Woodward did last night—that Jaguar Paw's story is akin to Thomas More's. Both men must somehow survive within a society that has become morally rotten.

But the fundamental difference between Jaguar Paw and Thomas More is this: Jaguar Paw's story is simply one of physical survival. He does not stand up against this society. He does not put forth his own principles.

Thomas More's story is the story of a man who did stand up against society. He was within it, a man of rank and respect, and chose—willfully chose—to suffer for his beliefs. He was betrayed by a friend, denied by another, lost his family, and eventually his life to stand up for what he believed.

What did Jaguar Paw willing risk? Passive characters don't make good fiction. Now Jaguar Paw isn't exactly a passive character, but he is a victim not of his own choosing. And he's not a very inspiring character, either: He doesn't do anything that any one of us would not do if we were in his position. We would try to escape and, having escaped, we would try to defend, and possibly die for, the few people most dear to us.

But would we choose the path Thomas More took? Would we be willing to sacrifice wealth, reputation, honor, station, friends, freedom, and our very life for a principle?

This is what I mean when I say the story itself must have meaning. When you have to look outside the story itself to find meaning in a piece of fiction—as Woodward does, when he examines the milieu in which the story is set—then that piece of fiction is flawed.

And lest anyone think I'm a Mel Gibson hater, I'm not. Three of my all-time favorite movies are Gibson flicks: Braveheart, We Were Soldiers, and The Passion of the Christ.

Finally, there is nothing in what Woodward says that I disagree with. If I disagree with anything, it must be his aesthetical sensibilities (if you can call them that).