..How historically accurate was it, not the story, but the basis of it?
2007-12-16 14:24:29 · 6 answers · asked by hbsizzwell 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
not very accurate. even the language is not the original mayan language which is not spoken anymore. most likely the language used in the movie was either tzeltel or tzotzil, two mayan languages spoken in chiapas, mexico today. firthermore, the mayans practiced headbinding from birth giving them an odd appearence. there is no indication in the actors' facial features by makeup showing this.
2007-12-18 05:54:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm sure its half and half. Just like in Braveheart, some of it was in the interests of drama, but some of it was true. Definitely don't expect to consider it a documentary, and if it was no one would want to go see it, has to be a little dramatic. The rituals you talk about I do believe occured at the Mayan ziggerat temples by the high priest as an offering to the Gods. Other than the plot I'd expect Gibson did his homework on the culture and the majority of it is true.
2016-05-24 07:06:22 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it was sort of accurate. It is mixed with some Aztec and i think some Incan. Also it was a little exaggerated.
2007-12-16 14:33:39 · answer #3 · answered by max 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
as accurate as his movie 'passion of the Christ',as good as historians can conclude
2007-12-16 14:29:34 · answer #4 · answered by ole man 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
mmmj
2007-12-16 14:34:20 · answer #5 · answered by i killed the prom queen 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it was accurate.
2007-12-16 14:53:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋