"Apocalypto", "The Fountain" and increase in Mayan projection.

[K.J]

Originally Posted by daniel

I've been reconsidering The Fountain. In retrospect, I think it is a powerful movie. The images and ideas stayed with me - also I had a number of very striking synchronicities around it.

I still don't know how to unpack it.

I'm happy to hear that it had the same kind of effect on you as it did on me! If you ever get a moment, it'd be interesting to hear the story of synchronicities surrounding your viewing of the film.

[K.J]

So, my wife and I went to see Apocalypto this weekend. Although I was entertained, it was only in a very shallow way. Not one bit of this film sparked a meeting with the divine, or pushed me any closer to the collective heart of humanity. It was very much Braveheart in Myan trappings. Overall, a forgetable film.

In contrast, the images, sounds and emotions that entered my being after having watched The Fountain more than a week ago are still with me.

[nyk]

Watching a Mel Gibson film is basically self cruelty at this point in the
game.

[wallace]

Is this the film thread?

Pans labyrinth is lovely all about how childrens psychic abilities are denied by adults. For lovers of the underworld everywhere, though you may need to find a art cinema.

Wallace

[nyk]

Well certainly looks interesting!





http://www.panslabyrinth.com/

[K.J]

__________

Scholars say accuracy is first casualty of 'Apocalypto'
By William Booth
Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES - The world audience is familiar with the deeds of the overachievers of the ancient world, such celebrity civilizations as the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.

Now it is time for the Maya to shine, but they are a more mysterious people who finally get star billing in Mel Gibson's new film ''Apocalypto.'' How do they do as a civilization? Not so nice.

''Apocalypto'' depicts the Maya as a super-cruel, psycho-sadistic society on the skids, a ghoulscape engaged in widespread slavery, reckless sewage treatment and bad rave dancing, with a real lust for human blood.

This is a problem because most scholars, while acknowledging the violence of this pre-Columbian society, applaud the Maya as among the New World's most sophisticated and subtle civilizations. They were, especially at their height around A.D. 800, remarkable Stone Agers who erected avant-garde cities in the jungles of Mexico and Central America, created sumptuous art, practiced a precise astronomy and developed a written language.

''Apocalypto's'' focus on the more, shall we say, extreme hobbies of the Maya (i.e., removal of still operating body parts) is giving the community of Maya researchers the fits.

''It is a shocking movie to us,'' says Stephen Houston, professor of anthropology at Brown University who has spent years excavating sites in Mexico and Central America.

The main gripe, says Houston, is that ''Apocalypto'' will make a bad impression on the general public. ''For millions of people this might be their first glimpse of the Maya,'' he says. ''This is the impression that is going to last. But this is Mel Gibson's Maya. . . . This is not the Maya we know.''

Gibson's consultant was respected Mayanist Richard Hansen, a professor at Idaho State University and president of the Foundation for Anthropological Research and Environmental Studies, which does preservation work and study in Guatemala. Gibson, a generous contributor, sits on its board.

''For the most part it is very accurate,'' Hansen says. ''I was amazed at the level of detail, the stone tools, gourds, iguana skins, strung up turkeys, just amazed.'' Yet ''there were things I didn't like that they went ahead and did anyway,'' he says. ''There was a lot of artistic license taken.''

Separating Maya from Mel

So where do the Maya end and where does Mel begin?

* Gibson shows grisly human sacrifice, and yes, the Maya were into it. But: The humans being chopped into nibbles were more likely to be royals and elites, not common forest dwellers like the film's Jaguar Paw, says Brown University anthropology professor Stephen Houston.

* The film depicts human sacrifice on a large scale and shows an open-pit grave filled with hundreds of headless dead. But: ''We have no evidence of mass graves,'' says Karl Taube, anthropology professor at the University of California at Riverside.

* Gibson includes what appears to be widespread slavery. Masses of gloomy, starved captives are seen toiling under heavy loads to build ceremonial centers. But: ''We have no evidence of large numbers of slaves,'' Taube says. Rather, most Mayanists suspect the pyramids and the like were built by free Maya who saw it as a civic duty.

* Finally, the Mayanists say the film appears confused about when events take place. One of the great mysteries of the Maya is why their civilization ''collapsed'' around A.D. 900. The current thinking is that collapse had many fathers: drought, deforestation, disease, overpopulation, warfare, social disruption. And Gibson's movie includes a little riff on them all.

But Gibson sets his film at the time of European contact in the early 1500s, when the first Spanish expeditions arrived on Maya shores. What wiped out the Maya in the 1500s was the Spanish, who brought European disease and fought for decades to pacify the Maya.

[nanouk]

Originally Posted by wallace

Is this the film thread?

Pans labyrinth is lovely all about how childrens psychic abilities are denied by adults. For lovers of the underworld everywhere, though you may need to find a art cinema.

Wallace

Going to see Pan's Labyrinth is definately one of the few luxury expenses i have planned this festive season...at first i thought it was going to be like a Stephen King movie, but i like the lore of the story, from what i have seen of the trailers and reviews...

~n~

[craazyman]

I think my friend Mieis Burnenhurdt [My-eyes-burn-and-hurt] could make it big as a movie reviewer. He can crank out about 10 or 11 per hour and say at $300-$400 a review, that's not bad money--it's up there with the high-class-whores. As long as he doesn't have to actually watch the movies he might be interested. Besides, Ramblesham [e.g. a fraudlent wander] is a comfy place when the snow sets in.

[sidecross]

Mel Gibson Is Wrong about Who the Violent Americans Are

By Roberto Lovato, New America Media
Posted on December 16, 2006

After watching Mel Gibson’s controversial film Apocalypto, I left the theater pondering the history of racism, pillage and apocalyptic war through my own blood and family history. Gibson, I concluded, would have been more accurate, his film more resonant, had he used another group of people, another culture – certainly not the Maya -- to depict his vision of the Apocalyse.

Like many Central Americans born and categorized as mestizos (mixed Indian and Spanish blood), I watched Apocalypto as someone who consciously revered the Maya and other indigenous groups while subconsciously prohibiting himself any real identification with them.

As a boy, my parents gave me a leather case with a picture of an Indian from the region now known as El Salvador (the Savior). But I heard my father call people he considered ugly “cara de indio” (Indian face). For many of us--mestizo and non-mestizo alike--it’s always been easier to identify with the Christian culture depicted in Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ than with the Maya culture in Apocalypto.

The fundamental problem with Apocalypto’s depiction of Maya culture is that, in a procrustean manner, it imposes violence and an apocalyptic world view on the wrong people. In fact, UC Riverside archaeologist Zachary X. Hruby wrote recently in the San Francisco Chronicle: “There exists no archaeological, historic or ethnohistoric data to suggest that any such mass sacrifices -- numbering in the thousands, or even hundreds -- took place in the Maya world.”

Instead, Gibson should have looked for apocalyptic war and culture in the off-screen history of our Catholic, mestizo, and indigenous families in the Americas.

He could have done his homework about how Salvadoran culture sanctions my father’s use of “cara de indio” as a way to call someone ‘ugly.’ I never understood the deeper reasons for such racist remarks until my father told me what happened when he was a ten-year-old boy who climbed trees in 1932. That year, my father saw military men kill hundreds of Indians in what historians call “La Matanza” or the Killing. More than 30,000 mostly Indian peasants in El Salvador were slaughtered on the order of General Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez, a theosophist military dictator who used radio broadcasts to justify his actions by sowing apocalyptic fear. Most of the killing my father witnessed took place not far from where the fictional killing fields of Apocalypto take place. Until I asked him about it, my father remained quiet about La Matanza for more than 65 years. The fear of Indians and apocalyptic war he learned while climbing trees as a boy stayed with him and spilled onto his kids through what some psychologists call “intergenerational trauma.”

It saddens me that the first big screen depiction of the inspired and inspiring culture of the Maya is this fatally inaccurate and very controversial film. Like the traumatized boy who became my father, millions among the current generations of Mayan, Guatemalan, Salvadoran and other Central American youth growing up in the United States and other countries are the children of apocalyptic war survivors. Most have experienced the numbing cultural effects of war; either firsthand or as the children of those who have witnessed the savagery of wars like the one in Guatemala, where apocalyptic dictator and born-again Pentecostal President Efrain Rios Montt, who famously said, “the true Christian has a Bible in one hand and a machine gun in the other,” ordered the killing and disappearance of more than 100,000, mostly Mayas. I saw how Montt used television and other media to beam the colorful biblical imagery of his apocalyptic vision as a way to cover over the massacre of innocents. He compared the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to the four contemporary evils of hunger, misery, ignorance and subversion

Apocalypto’s depiction of the Mayas scares in its inaccuracy, but it makes sense when we consider that Gibson’s main audience belongs to a culture that reveres another very conservative actor like him, Ronald Reagan. Reagan introduced the use of media-communication skills and apocalyptic politics to advance a political agenda. He used them to justify the full arming, full funding of and political support for Montt, whom Reagan defended as “getting a bum rap.” In the name of combating “evil” and protecting the “city on a hill,” Reagan infused his foreign and domestic policy with statements like, "we may be the generation that sees Armageddon" and “I don't know if you have noted any of those prophecies lately, but, believe me, they describe the times we are going through." While filmmaker Gibson claims to offer an allegorical critique of the declining, apocalyptic civilization that feeds wars like the one in Iraq, Gibson the extreme right-wing Catholic, anti-Semite fails in Apocalypto and in all his movies to critique the very religion that has dominated apocalyptic politics for centuries.

Better than most, Gibson knows that Apocalypse sells in a culture in which born-again politicos, best-sellers like the Left Behind books and blockbuster movies like his Mad Max series or Arnold Schwarzenegger’s End of Days and the Terminator trilogy plug into the cultural and political DNA of this country, whose Puritan founders came here prepared for the end of days with Bibles and 20-ton cannons crammed into their ships.

My identity, in part, has been shaped by the effects of a culture of violence and apocalyptic war best found not so much in the stuff of Gibson’s Mayan epic, Apocalypto, but in the stuff of his Christian epic, The Passion of the Christ

Roberto Lovato is a Los Angeles-based writer.

http://www.alternet.org/movies/45584/

[Caprinardo Delirio]

i'm gonna see pan's labyrinth tonight. then we'll see if maybe i should kill myself afterwards...

[drew hempel]

Yeah one of the regulars at my cafe hangout is in coma waiting for a liver transplant -- he swallowed two bottles of tylenol and then drank a bottle of nyquil over a two day period. He's only in his twenties. So hopefully he gets a transplant! But time is running out and his brain is collecting fluid....

[K.J]

I think maybe I've already posted enough of these articles about Apocalypto, so I think I'll make this my last one. But it is a good one. I think the author must be somewhat under the assumption that Gibson was trying to create something more college level history than 21st century entertainment, but he still makes some good points, and I do wish Gibson would have made the story a little more about the real Mayan's and not just more fodder for the big screen.

[Follow the link for the entire story; you might have to watch an ad to read the entire thing, but it's free]

Maya in the Thunderdome

In "Apocalypto," Mel Gibson paints a feverish, childish version of the Maya -- and mangles decades of scholarship about this complex civilization.

By Marcello A. Canuto

Dec. 15, 2006 | As a scholar of the Maya civilization, I was anxious to see Mel Gibson's portrayal of the Maya in "Apocalypto." Of course, I realize the movie is not a documentary and was mindful of the director's artistic license. I was happy to see that Gibson got some details right, like personal adornment, tools and body decoration. Although the main actors are native North Americans, I applaud Gibson's use of some Maya actors, as well as his decision to have the characters speak in a native Maya language, Yukatek, still heard in Mexico. While these are brave and ambitious choices, they also imply that "Apocalypto" is a sincere depiction of Maya society. In fact, the movie is not an accurate portrayal of the Maya at all; rather, it is a reflection of Gibson's own feverish imagination.

The movie tracks a young Mayan man who is captured in a surprise raid on his village. Forced to abandon his family, he and his companions are taken to the nearby city to be sacrificed. He manages to escape and, pursued by his captors, attempts to return to his village to save his family. During his getaway, he reaches a beach where he witnesses the arrival of Spaniards.

This final scene tells us that the movie focuses on Maya society on the eve of Spanish contact in the 16th century. Yet the Maya city portrayed in the movie, central to its plot, dates roughly to the 9th century. This is akin to telling a story about English pilgrims founding the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and showing them living in longhouses described in "Beowulf." In fact, Gibson incorporates Maya images from as far back as 300 B.C. Throughout the movie, these anachronisms make Maya civilization seem timeless, and undermine the idea that the Maya could and did respond to change.

[nyk]

The last movie of Mel that I watched was Signs. It was after seeing
that one that I finally realized that this guy really gives me the creeps.
I refused to go see The Shredding of Christ, and likewise Apocalypto.
It seems to me that his charming fascade has grown somewhat
transparent in recent years, and what lays beneath is a form of
brutal terrorism. Perhaps the same beast resides in all of us, but I
firmly believe that there are better ways of dealing with it than this.

[Isaiah Mpski]

Drew,I can still cure him but he needs to act fast.
I'll have his liver almost back to normal within a month.
Time is of the essence.
Have them CONTACT me.

Dr John D. Son MD,ND,NMD.918-473-5532

[craazyman]

The debate about Mel and the Mayans reminds me of standing on the crowded bus in Brooklyn above two buddah-bellied bag ladies flush with bargain groceries commiserating about two neighborhood flunkies, "One of them lies, the other swears", they kept repeating, "One of them lies, the other swears".

[Caprinardo Delirio]

i haven't watched signs, but i hear it's the funniest/worst movie in history. i really really hate m. night shyamalan, what a conceded fuck!

[drew hempel]

I recommended tons of garlic and pointed out how once people get "in hospital" then it's almost pointless.

But the immuno-suppression drug for organ transplants came directly from a fungus in Norway.

[sammygurlie]

the scene in apocalypto were the mother and son are in the cave thing and the boys legs gets cut, did the mother put ticks on the wound to heal it, or ants?

[Isaiah Mpski]

No,not really pointless.Hopeless if you get in the cancer line.
It's a way for the Medical-Industrial-Insurance to spread their money,influence and poison throughout civilization.

If you don't have insurance-then whatever you have can be taken away from you-house etc.

[K.J]

Originally Posted by sammygurlie

the scene in apocalypto were the mother and son are in the cave thing and the boys legs gets cut, did the mother put ticks on the wound to heal it, or ants?

Looked like army ants to me.

[nanouk]

Originally Posted by K.J

Looked like army ants to me.

Yes Army Ants are as good as Maggots and Leaches in the Medical World... here in the UK it is the endangered "Yellow Mound building Meadow Ant", (apparently only seen between the Rainbow Woods and Solsbury Hill above Bath) which is the Healer, and they create pictograms too!

Like a Crop circle or a Naszca or Chippewa Formation, saw a Spider (exact replica of the Plaines of the Andes, built by the Yellows) from a hot air balloon a few months ago...

Love and Respect for the Mounders,

~n~

ps. a couple of years ago, Forteana asked me what i meant about the "Secrets of the Ancients" when i tried to explain my seeing and feeling things, now i am ready to show him, if he is able to come over, Forteanajones, please pm me if you are still around, my book is finished, but the Archaeological society do not have a clue about the Ant People or ancient Bath History! ds.

[jezebelle]

I liked the movie, I felt like I was there. I also liked that the credits where credits and ideas were shared by other(s) than himself.
His other christ movie held no interest to me, crazy I know. I'm sorry I don't want to watch the beating part.
Yet this movie was allowing other stories to be told outside of the main stream. A good use of star power. Not different, but his message is still the same. No one left out.
love and respect, jez

[sidecross]

Published on Sunday, December 17, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

The Sober Racism of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto
by Liza Grandia

Film critics appear split on how to handle Mel Gibson's newest production, Apocalypto. A few refuse to patronize the film in symbolic protest of Gibson's drunken rants over the summer. Others suggest we should temporarily suspend judgment about Gibson's anti-Semitism and judge this action film on its own merits.

Remarkably, none of the critics seem to be asking whether Mel Gibson has produced a film any less racist than his summer tirades about Jews. Hollywood seems willing to admonish Gibson for certain kinds of bigotry, while oddly excusing other kinds of racism - especially if targeted at poor, brown, and indigenous peoples.

As a cultural anthropologist who has worked for thirteen years among different Maya peoples of Mesoamerica and who speaks the Q'eqchi' Maya language fluently, I found Apocalypto to be deeply racist. The Maya in the film bore no resemblance to the hardworking farmers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, businessmen and women of Maya descent that I know personally and consider among my closest friends.

I fear the repercussions Apocalypto will have on contemporary Maya people who continue to struggle for survival and political governments under discriminatory governments that consider them stupid, backward, and uncivilized for wanting to maintain their customs and language. Gibson's slanderous film reinforces the same stereotypes that have facilitated the genocide of Maya peoples and the plunder of their lands starting with the Spanish invasion of 1492 and continuing through the Guatemalan civil war to the present.

Rather than quibble about Apocalypto's many historical and archaeological inaccuracies as other academic critics have done, I focus here on four racist messages the film sends to audiences:

1. Native Americans are all interchangeable. Many critics have offered facile praise to Gibson for having filmed his bloody epic in a contemporary Maya language and employed various Native American actors. Gibson has boasted to the press how relatively cheap it was to make the film because he had pay so little to these actors and his Mexican crew. To me, these actors didn't look or sound Maya at all. Their Yucatec diction was terrible and lacked the real lyric cadence of Maya languages. If someone exploited local labor to make a cheap film about gang-violence in Brooklyn and employed heavily-accented Australian and British actors, would critics still praise it as "authentic" simply because the actors are speaking English?

2. Mesoamerican cultures are all the same. While keeping some of the archaeological details accurate for "authenticity," Gibson then jumbles together mass Aztec sacrifices with Maya rituals, as if they were the same. Certainly at the height of classic Maya civilization, the ruling classes made occasional human sacrifices to their gods, but nothing on the Holocaust-level scale that Gibson portrays in Apocalypto with fields of rotting, decapitated corpses that his hero, Jaguar Paw stumbles across as he attempts to escape his own execution in the city. With the advice of archaeologist Richard Hansen, Gibson seems to have researched anything the Maya might have done badly over a thousand year history and crammed it all into a few horrific days. How would the gringos look if we made a film that lumped together within one week the torture at the Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo prisons, the Tuskegee experiments, KKK lynchings, the battle at Wounded Knee, Japanese internment camps, the Trail of Tears, the Salem witch hunts, Texas death row executions, the Rodney King police beatings, the slaughter upon the Gettysburg battlefield, and the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and made this look like a definitive statement on U.S. culture?

3. Indigenous people should remain noble savages, since attempts to build cities and more complex political organization will bring their inevitable demise. Gibson purportedly wanted to make a statement about the decay of empires in this film. However, the only clear message I could take away was that indigenous people should have remained friendly forest hunter-gatherers and never have attempted to build their own civilization. Ignoring the fact by the time of the Spanish invasion, all Maya peoples had been either urbanized or sedentary agriculturalists for hundreds of years and maintained complex trade networks, Gibson nevertheless depicts his hero's tribe as crude but happy rainforest peoples living in isolation, blissfully ignorant of the corrupt cities neighboring them. He contrasts these noble forest savages with evil city dwellers such as slave traders, despotic politicians, psychotic priests, and sadistic head-hunters all living amidst rotting sewage, filth, disease, and general misery. Real Maya cities were places with sophisticated water and sanitation systems, great libraries, and extraordinary artwork and architecture. If Gibson wanted to make a statement about the consequences of environmental destruction, as he has claimed to the press, why not produce a film about corporate excesses at Love Canal or Three Mile Island instead of mucking up the historical reputation of the ancient Maya?

4. The Spanish arrive as if to save the Maya from themselves. After enduring two hours of horrific violence, in the last minutes of the film, we witness the miraculous rescue of the film's hero Jaguar Paw from his stalkers by the appearance of Spanish galleons off the coast. This short, final scene shows dour Spaniards approaching the mainland in boats bearing Christian crosses across still water. After forcing his audience to endure two hours of horrific violence, Gibson uses this placid scene allow the movie-goer a sigh of relief in the hopes that these European Civilizers have arrived to make order out of the Maya mayhem. By ending his film there, Gibson ignores the far greater genocide to befall the Maya. In fact, within a hundred years of conquest, the Spanish were responsible for killing between 90 and 95 percent of the Maya population through disease, warfare, starvation, and enslavement.

To stereotype and slander ancient Maya civilization and to imply that the impending holocaust of Maya peoples by the Spanish is a "new beginning" shows how truly racist Gibson really is-whether drunk or sober.

Liza Grandia is a cultural anthropologist who has worked with Maya peoples in Guatemala and Belize since 1993 and who speaks Q'eqchi' Maya fluently. She is currently a postdoctoral fellow at Yale University, writing a book called "Unsettling" about the repeated land dispossessions and enclosures of the Q'eqchi'.


http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1217-24.htm

[jezebelle]

rob I went to your website and saw a hummingbird feeding on salva!
especially cool.
bless this here internet, I love the infomation exchange.
hugs, jes

[Mars]

On the Aztec/Mayan confusion, Gibson's screw-up was brought home all the more re-reading the introduction to "2012" that was recently re-printed on someone's blog that Daniel makes mention of in a recent post.

"The Aztecs believed that the cosmos dissolved and regenerated itself from time to time. They called this world the age of the Fifth Sun, and feared the transition to the next epoch. During the last years of their empire, they sacrificed an estimated seventy thousand people a year in order to keep the Fifth Sun alive—a textbook case of the destructive mania that overtakes empires when they decline and turn decadent."

I haven't yet seen Apocalypto and I don't know if I will - at least not by paying for it (I live in NYC where the bootleg trade does allow one to watch movies of filmmakers that one might not be inclined to financially support). Reading about it's gross inaccuracies has pushed me into the "no" category, but it raises all sorts of questions. Would I recommend others to not see this movie? Would I actively protest it? Does Gibson have a right to get so much wrong?

I imagine if an American filmmaker had made a movie about the plains Indians, depicting them as a vicious, brutal and corrupt people who deserved the virtual extermination the Europeans subjected them to. It seems to me such a movie would be critically raped by the same critics who are lauding Apocalypto in that "he's crazy, but it's a good movie" kind of way. Does it matter if it is a well-crafted movie if it perpetrates a gross misconception of a culture on the most insensitive level (genocide anyone)?

And yet...I believe in creative freedom and creative license and to some degree in a loose notion of the "marketplace of ideas". On this last point, if someone makes a terribly inaccurate piece of art, then the necessary and natural reaction is to discuss it broadly, natch, but then to answer it with another piece of art that gets it right, that is a better and more popular work. It's the middle piece of creative license that is the stickiest. From what I've read, Gibson seems to be conflating the Mayans with the Aztecs in order to make a point about decay and decline and the mania that results from it. Why he chose the Mayans over the Aztecs can only be speculated upon - but I suspect it has to do with those same cultural accomplishments the Mayans achieved that Gibson (so I hear) willfully omits from the story: in mathematics, farming, astronomy, etc. He perhaps chose the Mayans to demonstrate that a civilization that reached such lofty heights can still fall victim to decline. If he had focused on the Aztecs, whose accomplishments might be viewed from a certain point of view as less refined and who have a reputation for being warlike, the point of decline might not have been as salient. For those that have seen the movie, does this jibe at all with your experience of it?

I don't think I really ever would protest against a movie as I've certainly seen an awful lot of crap in my life that was horribly misrepresentative and somehow I've managed to come out the other side as a reasonably enlightened individual. I think more than anything I'm sort of disgusted with the critical response to the film. Not because the critics shouldn't reward it for it's craftsmanship, but because so many haven't factored in the broader statement it seems to be making (the Mayans were savages who deserved the thumping the Spaniards gave them). If I hadn't read the reviews posted here - only one of which appeared in a US paper, I believe, but in none of the majors - I would never have been aware of it. That is an egregious failure of the press and it really pisses me off.

Then, again, maybe I need to just get the $5 bootleg and see for myself.

[Caprinardo Delirio]

i think critics of historical inaccuracy in films have more or less given up and just accepted the fact that movie directors can't care to keep one foot in the authentic grave and the other in whatever grave they're trying to envoke.. i mean, troy!?!

[Rowan27]

Pan's Labyrinth, wow. It looks like the idea could make such a great, fantasy, twisted mystical movie ( Like the old Labyrinth or The Dark Crystal ) But it also seems like it looks better than it probably is, especially with the typical storyline. Im definatly going to check it out though.

[drew hempel]

Curse of the Golden Flower: CLEAVAGE!

[nanouk]

Originally Posted by drew hempel

Curse of the Golden Flower: CLEAVAGE!

...didn't get the $5 bootleg of THAT, *lol*, but my landlord got the disc of Apocalypto, going to watch it tomorrow night...i do not take these Hollywood epics seriously at all, heck, if one can't trust CNN or Sky News, why take Metro-Goldwyn or 20th Century for face value???

Is Saddam really gone? Are foreign troups withdrawing from the Middle East finally?

Don't hold your breath...i am not.

Love, Peace and Respect,

~N~

[drew hempel]

OK well here's the cleavage if that's your thang. http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/c...egoldenflower/

Anyway China had a foot fetish so why put all the buxom women in front doing the Baywatch trick? hilarious.

Wow -- turns out that the TANG did promote the cleavage thang! Cool. http://www.filmstew.com/showBlog.aspx?blog_id=929

I don't know. Chesticles is my term but I'm eccentric.