Mel Gibson at it again

[balamw]

That's true, but you can hardly get that at a "Walmart" like the guy suggested can you?

ajiaco, que rico!

Actually most of what's in ajiaco can be had anywhere, including Wally World. It's pretty much a chicken/potato/corn soup/stew served over rice, with one specific herb that you'd probably have to mail order unless you happen to be or live among Colombians.

B

 

[kiwi-in-uk]

ajiaco, que rico!

Actually most of what's in ajiaco can be had anywhere, including Wally World. It's pretty much a chicken/potato/corn soup/stew served over rice, with one specific herb that you'd probably have to mail order unless you happen to be or live among Colombians.

B

The herb you mention - is it "guascas"? Is there a close substitute?
And, having a look through some recipes, I noticed several varieties of potato that I haven't come across before. Is it important to use those varieties?

And back on topic ... I think if Gibson can make it very obvious that this is fictional history AND that there will be some inaccuracies in portrayal of the culture, then my view is that it will be "a good thing" if it generates interest in more accurate representations of Mayan culture.

Yes, it is a double edged sword. But many countries and cultures have been victims of the Hollywood style over the last hundred years. I can remember quite a number of warped representations of New Zealand and Australian histories and cultures. Some of the myths persist, and even now some foreign "documentary" makers skew the truth, but the net result is that access to some information seems to generate interest in the real stories - and encourages people to go and see for themselves. That is a good thing.

 

[xsedrinam]

The herb you mention - is it "guascas"? Is there a close substitute?
And, having a look through some recipes, I noticed several varieties of potato that I haven't come across before. Is it important to use those varieties?

And back on topic ... I think if Gibson can make it very obvious that this is fictional history AND that there will be some inaccuracies in portrayal of the culture, then my view is that it will be "a good thing" if it generates interest in more accurate representations of Mayan culture.

Yes, it is a double edged sword. But many countries and cultures have been victims of the Hollywood style over the last hundred years. I can remember quite a number of warped representations of New Zealand and Australian histories and cultures. Some of the myths persist, and even now some foreign "documentary" makers skew the truth, but the net result is that access to some information seems to generate interest in the real stories - and encourages people to go and see for themselves. That is a good thing.

Criolla, sabanera and a red potato are the "must" haves with the potato family. Guascas is the spice (herb). One can get cilantro just about anywhere, though I don't have a clue what "WallyWorld" is about.

 

[hmmfe]

And since 'America' continues to be penned, ignorantly as the great catch-all for all three Americas, one of my favorite American foods is ajiaco. It can be found by going to New York, turning right and traveling south about 3000 miles to one of the other Americas.

Three Americas? I guess Central America is a common name for a region of North America, but using this guideline would mean there are at least 4 Europes (Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western). I think in normal parlance there are two Americas when referring to continents, and a single America when referring to countries. Since most people refer to themselves by their country rather than their continent, I don't see anything wrong with referring to citizens of the United States of America as Americans.

To be fair, though, I guess we could call ourselves Unitedians (but perhaps the good folks of the United Arab Emirates would have a similar complaint to yours). So, lets see... How about Stateians? No, we'd be offending the oft neglected people of the Federated States of Micronesia. Well, the leaves Ofians. Shoot, can't use that either... We could get Prince's approval and go as "the people formerly known as Americans" but in reality use an unpronounceable symbol...yeah, that would be cool.

There are a ton of things that you could criticize us for...but choice of name just seems silly and a bit gratuitous.

 

[leekohler]

I think Mel Goeb*els (as I like to refer to him) should go to Walmart, buy a lot of nice American food and then lock himself up in a cave and translate the Bible to l33t. If you guys want right wing political activits with a lost sense of what is going on in the world you can just go to East Germany.

Sorry for distrubing the peace of this board but I hate this guy. I really do.

Can't stand him either. He's an ignorant, untalented fool. Hmm...I forgot boring. Sorry about that.

 

[xsedrinam]

Three Americas? I guess Central America is a common name for a region of North America, but using this guideline would mean there are at least 4 Europes (Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western)...
There are a ton of things that you could criticize us for...but choice of name just seems silly and a bit gratuitous.

Not if one is from the two thirds world. Central and South America are not only geographically, idiomatically and socio-politically distinct from the United States in sovereignty, but they would consider it "gracioso" not "gratuitous" to naively assume the three are to be lumped in to one generalization. The European analogy doesn't really fit. Who knows; maybe Gibson will come out with yet another rendering of Columbus Day, recognized in Central and South America as "El Día de la Raza" or "La Invasión de España". Then we could drag Amerigo Vespucci in to the scenario and have boatloads of fun.

 

[tangerineyum]

Bad idea me thinks. I quite think I've grown to despise him.

 

[mark6051]

Not Sure but

I Don't think Hollywood has ever really "gotten" anything right...African Americans constantly dressed as pimps, Middle Eastern as swarthy assassins, Russians nearly always as the neatly dressed, heavily armed bad guys, Aussies as terrible "G'Day Mate, chuck another prawn on the barbie" beer swilling hooligans, and the english...well, cue "plummy voice with tea and biscuits"...

Mel does the best he can, and yes, it may not be close enough for those puritans, but at least he is making an attempt to get it right..If you want exactitude in your movies, then rent a documentary and watch it with an Encyclopedia and historical texts close at hand. If you want something that will open your eyes and maybe make you look at something a little harder, then watch the movie...I re-read the bible after 20yrs after "Passion of The Christ" came out...But then again, I also re-read Lord Of The Rings..

Go Mel....he has come a long way from "Mad Max" and he's an beer swilling, prawn on the barbie Aussie as well...

 

[hmmfe]

Not if one is from the two thirds world.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. First, I thought the term "3rd world" is considered offensive. Second, I never knew that there was more than one "3rd world". Or do you mean the 2/3 world? If so, I do not understand what you mean.

Central and South America are not only geographically, idiomatically and socio-politically distinct from the United States in sovereignty, but they would consider it "gracioso" not "gratuitous" to naively assume the three are to be lumped in to one generalization.

Unfortunately, you are factually incorrect. Central America is, geographically, a region of the continent of North America. I am not suggesting, though, that it is not geographically distinct. Certainly, we all know what part of the world we are talking about when we use the name "Central America".

Not a single person is arguing that the continent of South America is to be lumped (idiomatically or socially or politically) together with the country called the United States of America. Also, no one is suggesting that the region called Central America is to be confused with the country called the United States of America or the continent of South America (or North America for that matter).

You seem bent on making a political statement here. If that is your sole intent, then have at it. I have no desire to argue political definitions with you. I responded because you called the correct usage of geographically accepted terms "ignorant" and "naive". Good luck with your political agenda.

The European analogy doesn't really fit.

I would not argue that it does, if you are solely interested in a political argument. I offered the analogy from a Geography perspective. In this light the analogy works.

Again, you seem determined to make some political statement. Good for you. Not all of us want to substitute Political Science and Sociology for Geography. This fact does not make us ignorant and naive.

 

[xsedrinam]

Again, you seem determined to make some political statement. Good for you. Not all of us want to substitute Political Science and Sociology for Geography. This fact does not make us ignorant and naive.

No agenda at all. You're projecting too much in to it, if that's the conclusion. And I've called no person ignorant or naive, referring only to the generalizations which have been replete and unchallenged in various threads when alluding to "Americans" as a catch all for the diversity of "Americans", globally. Anyway, back to the Mel Gibson being at it again. Pax vobiscum, my fellow "American".

 

[hmmfe]

And I've called no person ignorant or naive, referring only to the generalizations which have been replete and unchallenged in various threads when alluding to "Americans" as a catch all for the diversity of "Americans", globally.

As I've stated before, the generalization, as you call it, is not naive or ignorant. It is geographically correct.

If you are from Columbia, you are a South American. If you are from Canada, you are a North American. That is, of course, if you identify yourself by your continent of orgin rather than the more common country of origin.

Being an American, I am from the country called the United States of America. I am also a North American. Being from Columbia would make that person a Columbian and a South American.

Seeing as how this method avoids any and all confusion regarding your nationality and continent of origin, I am curious why you insist of muddling the subject by using vague and confusing terminology?

It is your right to call yourself anything you want. If you want to be an American, good for you. If American, in your lexicon, means anybody in either North or South America (and yes, even the region called Central America), then what do you call people from the United States of America when you need to distinguish them from a Brazilian and a Canadian?

 

[xsedrinam]

As I've stated before, the generalization, as you call it, is not naive or ignorant. It is geographically correct.

If you are from Columbia, you are a South American. If you are from Canada, you are a North American. That is, of course, if you identify yourself by your continent of orgin rather than the more common country of origin.

Being an American, I am from the country called the United States of America. I am also a North American. Being from Columbia would make that person a Columbian and a South American.

Seeing as how this method avoids any and all confusion regarding your nationality and continent of origin, I am curious why you insist of muddling the subject by using vague and confusing terminology?

It is your right to call yourself anything you want. If you want to be an American, good for you. If American, in your lexicon, means anybody in either North or South America (and yes, even the region called Central America), then what do you call people from the United States of America when you need to distinguish them from a Brazilian and a Canadian?

It's spelled Colombia. Columbia is in the Carolinas, Missouri and elsewhere. You're welcome to your own labels and can have at it. I'm an American, U.S. citizen, born in Chicago. Another assumption you've apparently overlooked. Whatever. Maybe you have an agenda?

 

[Lord Blackadder]

This sounds pretty exciting. It reminds me of the movie Black Robe, which put realism above everything else.

I spent most of my undergrad career studying the Maya with a Mayan epigrapher and archeologist. The ancient (as well as modern) Mayan culture is pretty poorly understood by the general public, so assuming Gibson follows current archeological thinking the movie should have a positive impact on cultutral awareness of the Maya as a people.

And personally I like movies in their original languages - it does a lot for the atmosphere.

I have my issues with Gibson but he is just the person to pull this off, if it works.

 

[xsedrinam]

This sounds pretty exciting. It reminds me of the movie Black Robe, which put realism above everything else.

I spent most of my undergrad career studying the Maya with a Mayan epigrapher and archeologist. The ancient (as well as modern) Mayan culture is pretty poorly understood by the general public, so assuming Gibson follows current archeological thinking the movie should have a positive impact on cultutral awareness of the Maya as a people.

And personally I like movies in their original languages - it does a lot for the atmosphere.

I have my issues with Gibson but he is just the person to pull this off, if it works.

I think such a film would help with understanding and appreciating mesoamerican culture and history provided it follows, as hoped, studies of the same.

 

[hmmfe]

It's spelled Colombia. Columbia is in the Carolinas, Missouri and elsewhere. You're welcome to your own labels and can have at it. I'm an American, U.S. citizen, born in Chicago. Another assumption you've apparently overlooked. Whatever. Maybe you have an agenda?

Yes, you are right. Sorry for the typo - did not mean to offend anyone. I still have Columbia (from the recent Columbus Day happenings - a big deal here in Denver, and we've just opened an office in Columbia, MO) on the brain...

Thing is, these are not my labels. They are the accepted place names for the continents, countries and regions we have been discussing.

No assumptions here. My argument is not dependent on your nationality. I have not made any conclusion as to your nationality. More to the point, your nationality (and mine) is irrelevant.

Whatever? LOL. What? Is the "talk to the hand" argument coming next?

Have an agenda? Yes, I do. In this case, it just isn't a political one. Either way, nothing wrong with having an agenda.

-edit: small correction

 

[miloblithe]

As wary as I am of Mel Gibson, I'm really interested in this and I commend him on his dedication to ancient languages. I agree it'll add something to the movie.

On the other hand, I'm worried this'll be as shmaltzy and crappy as Braveheart was, combined with all the political problems I had with Passion of the Christ.

At the very least though, I imagine seeing it would make me interested in reading more about Mayan history, so I'm looking forward to that.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

At the very least though, I imagine seeing it would make me interested in reading more about Mayan history, so I'm looking forward to that.

As long as it does that for people, I'll consider the movie a success.

 

[savar]

The guy is talented. But I'm not sure where the inspiration for this came about.[/URL]

Mel Gibson is a fool, a lunatic, and completely talentless. I can't believe so many people here like him.

 

[xsedrinam]

I think the controversy, intrigue and outright hostility toward the director will only help contribute to the box office of Apocalypto when it's released. I will make every effort to see it once it's out. I'm already appreciating a pre-Cortez, non-European approach for casting. It should be interesting.

 

[ColoJohnBoy]

Interesting as it sounds, I'm terribly hestitant to be excited by it. Before 'Passion of the Christ' came out, I was eager to see it thinking it would be in the same vein as a short film called 'Lamb of God' - entirely in the dead languages (no subtitles, though) detail the last hours of the life of Christ. The short film was affecting and sincere; 'The Passion' bypassed everything, the spirit and intent of Christ's message, and replaced it with violence that, however accurate, took away from the movie any profundity or depth. It was violent pornography. This new film of his, though, may be better as he (hopefully) isn't passionate about the material in the same way he was 'The Passion'.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Interesting as it sounds, I'm terribly hestitant to be excited by it. Before 'Passion of the Christ' came out, I was eager to see it thinking it would be in the same vein as a short film called 'Lamb of God' - entirely in the dead languages (no subtitles, though) detail the last hours of the life of Christ. The short film was affecting and sincere; 'The Passion' bypassed everything, the spirit and intent of Christ's message, and replaced it with violence that, however accurate, took away from the movie any profundity or depth. It was violent pornography. This new film of his, though, may be better as he (hopefully) isn't passionate about the material in the same way he was 'The Passion'.

I'm pretty neutral on Gibson, and to be honest (I hope this doesn't sound too arrogant) most of the people who see the film will not be qualified to comment on how good a job it does, since few people (in the general public) really know much about the ancient Maya. Most of what I thought I knew before I began studying them turned out to be more or less wrong. Mayan Archeology has changed a great deal since our highschool textbook were written, and epigraphers can read 20-30% more of the Mayan glyphs now than when I was in highschool. Many of the documentaries on the Discovery Channel and others are already out of date.

What this film will do (whether it's good or not) is raise public awareness of a very important culture that is often overlooked and nearly always misrepresented and misunderstood.

Maybe the film will be full of innacuracies and irritate me, or maybe it will be excellent; I'll reserve judgement until I see it.

Personally I didn't enjoy the Passion, but I think that it succeeded in replicating the visual spectacle of what the event would have looked like, and left it to the viewer to draw his/her own conclusions. People believe a lot of different things - something that is demonstrated forcefully by the endless ways people reacted to the film.

 

[QCassidy352]

I'll always love him for Braveheart and Leathal Weapon, but I have no real interest in his current work.

 

[LethalWolfe]

It was violent pornography. This new film of his, though, may be better as he (hopefully) isn't passionate about the material in the same way he was 'The Passion'.

It's a violent pornography
Choking chicks and sodomy
The kind of s**t you get on your TV



I'm interested in his new film pretty much because of the way he's going about making it. I didn't care for "Passion" mostly because it was a guy getting the crap beat outta him w/little context and little story telling. Thumbs up for trying something new, thumbs down for execution (no pun intended).


Lethal

 

[xsedrinam]

So, anyone going to see Apocalypto on the 8th, or soon after? Will this be another surprise blockbuster by Gibson, or just a bust? I haven't paid much attention to any particular hype, negative or positive, but plan to see it.

 

[OnceUGoMac]

Mel Gibson is a fool, a lunatic, and completely talentless. I can't believe so many people here like him.

And I think that Aqua Teen Hunger Force is lame, so what's you're point?