Obvious spoilers.
I'm still not sure what to think. Mel Gibson tried to portray the qualities of a civilization near its death -- an ignorant population swayed by superstition and debauchery, the absence of human rights, a descent without care, or perhaps foolhardiness -- I can't pin it. But the theme is simple. The Mayan center of power has started pillaging and destroyings outlying villages for human sacrifices. Jaguar Paw manages to escape, but there on the beach are the Spanish. I think the intended interesting part is that Jaguar Paw rejects the Spanish as well, preferring to risk his life in the jungle once more and try to find a new beginning. I think the rejection of the Spanish implies that Jaguar Paw (albeit never having a love for it) has developed a distaste for central civilization and its merciless whims. One of the boats coming to the beach even has a prominent cross and friar on board. And anyway, Jaguar Paw was right on that point in particular, since we all know what the Spanish ended up doing. But what perplexes me is that Mel Gibson is the one behind this film. Its message is decidedly anti-establishment and anti-religion. Either he wasn't aware of what he was doing, or Gibson has a secret.
At any rate, yes, the film is violent. But I never felt queasy, so the violence was at least in taste (though I couldn't enjoy my candy that much). A lot of the critics are rejecting the movie by virtue of the violence alone, which amuses me. There are much darker films with less horrific but more well-presented violence which could be rejected on that point, since they do masterfully cause nausea, fear, that sort of thing. But the violence of the Maya is not new -- we all know about Mesoamerican sacrifices, and to see all this blood happening onscreen isn't that much of a shock. I was surprised to see breasts, since I had guessed that this would be a trademark example of how society has little restriction on violence but total restriction on the sexual side of things. But they were there. Nothing prominently sexual, though.
Half the reason I saw the film was to observe their vision of a Mayan city in its full, painted glory. This is somewhat delivered; the central tower of sacrifice is hugely impressive. But I'll tell you this -- the Mayans had nothing on Rome.
In summary, this is a curious film. The storytelling is visceral and illustrative, but the theme is almost too subtle -- maybe because the anti theme was not what Mel Gibson was trying to present, as he stated that it was about the fall of civilizations. But if we take the protagonist's point of view, he seems to disapprove of organized religion and civilization entirely at the end of the day. I think if Gibson had wanted to really talk about the fall, the film would have taken place purely in the Mayan city, and would have shown its rot perhaps through the eyes of a courtesan or politico. But it all occurs through the eyes of a jungle hunter, and it is with his perspective that we are left. If there is an aftertaste, it is a thankful feeling for this civilization. It is an appreciation that we're beginning to install a rudimentary safety net under humanity (should something fall). But there is a long way to go, as one can easily understand from drawing parallels with the fallen civilizations of days past.
