With all of the recent news of Mel Gibson and his run-in with the police, it has been suggetsed that his Lamanite thriller Apocolypto will be postponed yet again. Originally, Apocolypto was scheduled to be released sometime this month, but, due to heavy rains in Mexico, it will be released in December. Although, with recent DUI charges, rehab, and anti-semitist remarks, who knows if it will be pushed back even farther?
I was/am still excited to see what Gibson does with the subject matter. I can't remember any good feature films set in Mesoamerica (unless you consider "Ancient America Speaks"). Sadly, I fear that I will be greatly dissapointed. In general, films depicting archaeology have been lacking in accuracy and details.
The Indiana Jones, Tomb Raider, and tragically, Alien vs Predator (shout out to Craig) films all had some sort of "archaeological" theme but fell flat when it came to accuracy.
Now, one could argue that archaeology is in itself, boring. Who wants to film someone filling out site forms or digging a test pit? But there have been some exciting discoveries and events in the archaeological world. The question is, which is better? Making a film about modern archaeologists in adventurous positions or making films ala Apocolypto set in the past, loosely based on the archaeological record?
I would argue that the latter holds more appeal, but the problem is that with so many conflicting theories, one group of theorists will always be upset. Imagine, what if someone did a film on (work with me on this) the Fremont? Who would the writers interview to get the skinny? I can picture a film in which culture takes the sideline, many of the concepts of HBE are thrown in our faces(apologies to Dave), and certain interpretations anger the Natives.
Conversly, a film about a modern archaeologist will almost always take an Indiana Jones/Tomb Raider/Bones slant due to the lack of excitement surrounding excavations and field work.
So, in short, is there a future for archaeological subjects in the cinema? I doubt that anyone will ever get the subject completely right, but what do you all think?
I know that on television, many shows have had some success. Programs appearing on the History Channel and Discovery Channel are, despite melodrama and little inaccuracies, archaeologically friendly. Although, when you get guys like the Josh Bernstein of Digging for the Truth at the helm, I shudder. Ultimately, I think that Chris has the right idea for his tv show, and hey, if Steve Irwin, Crocodile Hunter got a movie, why couldn't Mr. Watkins and his cast and crew of the as yet unnamed archaeology tv show?
2 comments:
Not to go all artsy-fartsy, but I think that one of the main points of cinema (as opposed to film media used for archives, education, etc) IS to distort reality into something that is idealistically entertaining. Of course Indiana Jones and Lara Croft are unrealistic, but excepting maybe Lara's freakishly large lips, who hasn't wanted to be these characters at one point or other. It's escapism at its finest, and in contrast to the 1950's anti-escapist mentality, I think, these days, we can acknowledge that we all benefit from it. Filter through the more boring 30 pages of "On Fairy Stories" by Tolkien and you'll find 2 or so pages of really good discussion on this topic.
But ultimately, we watch movies to forget reality, so why make something realistic? Creation of reality removes the film from 'cinema' and makes it 'educational film media'. So how about we take people out on sites or give lectures, or even expand the reach of groups like USAS instead of trying to reach larger masses with some sleeper on the 'truth' behind mesoamerican use of cacao beans!
My guess is that Mel's will be another one of the Indiana-types, though I doubt if he'll score a cult classic. "We named the turkey Xibalba", or whatever, just doesn't have the same ring!
I could see a Fremont film where they are all eating cattails, playing around with agriculture, and venerating elk. Chris could play the "big man."
Post a Comment