Martin Scorsese's SILENCE, adapted from Shûsaku Endô's novel of monks in 17th-century Japan, starring Liam Neeson, Andrew Garfield, Ken Watanabe, and Adam Driver

ryan otm

I'm getting more and more uncomfortable with this thread...

theme of thread: "its just the best religion. deal with it."

if you are not able to grasp or accept that there is something like an "essence" of christianity that is distinct from the Church or doctrine then you'll forever be butting your head against this novel/film. it's not about proselytizing (though there is an element of that, surely) but it doesn't strike me as terribly insightful to argue that Endo, writing in japan as a christian in the wake of his own country's catastrophic disregard for human life and the equally tragic and evil results of those actions visited upon his countrymen, should be terribly worried about the sins of the church which are in fact quite remote to him. should those sins be acknowledged? without question. does every narrative that is about christian missionaries need to rehash them? no.

Yeah it just seems one-dimensional to do so.

Been reading this thread and thinking I might watch and strikes me there is something of an Abel Ferrara (or even Pasolini) vibe to all of this (?) a reading of faith and the way it moves and churns inside people and its surroundings..

Scorsese has always praised Pasolini's Christ film as a key one for him... I also found this quote (re Last Temptation:

"The picture I wanted to make was about Jesus on Eighth Avenue, something like Pasolini's Accatone. The pimp represents all of us. He's our mortal condition..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=ljPBGqCn3ccC&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=scorsese+pasolini+faith&source=bl&ots=riol1Kwgr_&sig=y0Jm5x9fXiHHAHEYo_2ULLQ3s7c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR4YqSzbXRAhUG3YMKHV_DAyIQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=scorsese%20pasolini%20faith&f=false

should those sins be acknowledged? without question. does every narrative that is about christian missionaries need to rehash them? no.

Hmm. What if we just put the Spanish Inquisition skit as a mid-credits stinger in all of them?

I've said my piece. I never reduced the film to my issue with it. But as I've yet to see anyone making my point I feel it's still valid.

My last comment was more about the historo-evangelising in the thread since then.

Carry on.

StillAdvance otm.

But as I've yet to see anyone making my point I feel it's still valid.

#don'tStopBelieving

Scorsese has always praised Pasolini's Christ film as a key one for him... I also found this quote (re Last Temptation:

Yeah I guess my fear when I heard about this was that it could turn out like Last Temptation, which I didn't like (saw that over ten years ago now).

My memory may play me false but the scene where Kichijiro betrays Father Rodrigues seemed to be a direct homage to the Judas pieces of silver scene in the Pasolini film, right down to the sound design.

I couldn't get over how much the story seemed like a melding of the gospel and Heart of Darkness.

another long interview, in Commonweal (speaking of Conrad)

The priests in Silence belonged to the Society of Jesus, so they belonged to a group, a religious institution. Something has happened to their mentor. They go to look for him. And it’s as if we were to go to another planet today. They go to a place that couldn’t be more different from where they live, both physically—I mean, the actual landscape itself—and culturally. That means the way people speak, and their body language, and every aspect of how they live: how they write, if they do write; how they drink water, inside a kind of bamboo thermos, so to speak. How they live with nature around them. And their perception of the world and the universe around them. I couldn’t really try to explain any of that; I just had to let it happen. I had to let it happen through, for example, the behavior of the inquisitor and the behavior of the interpreter. The interpreter has no name. Is he even really an interpreter? When he’s asked certain questions, he says, “I cannot comment on things from the inquisitor’s office.” Now, in making the film, I knew what their hierarchy was, from the research we did. But if you’re stuck there, like Rodrigues, you’re caught, you don’t know who’s coming into that jail cell or that hut of twigs. You just don’t know. I did get bogged down at first in trying to write this script, and trying to explain a different world and different time, but I realized I had to let it play out. A lot of it is though the pacing. How to find the pacing that is appropriate for that world, without losing an audience?....

RRC: There’s a Heart of Darkness-like structure to this story. Is that something you were consciously thinking of?

MS: No. [laughs] No! Because I think there’s such beauty in the landscape and the people on the way to find Ferreira, whereas Heart of Darkness is so terrifying. I reread that about ten years ago. It’s absolutely terrifying....

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/interview-martin-scorsese

Glenn Kenny on that whole damn-the-missionary thing

Some of my critical colleagues have been expressing dismay in social media that some prominent commentators have blinded themselves to Martin Scorsese's magnificent Silence on the grounds of "Meh, religion," or, more strongly put, "Religion sucks," or, "Both sides do it so why doesn't the movie show the depredations of the Catholic Church." This is unfortunate but I think actually more unavoidable than the La La Land nonsense. The La La Land detractors ridiculously blow up the movie's "chase your dreams" metaphors; the anti-Silence folks pick nits that are either non-existent or entirely beside the point, conveniently skirting the fact that this is an adaptation of a Japanese novel. My opinion on this may be suspect because I was raised Catholic but for me the specifics of the apostasy took second place to larger and even more moving themes. That is, I eventually intuited something beyond Catholicism versus the shogunate and vice-versa. Past faith, I felt Silence addressing issues of will, free will, and whether there really is such a thing as human freedom. The questions it presents, I thought, were more moving and unsettling for the cinematic form in which they were presented. If you're looking at it and going down a list of the things you think it should be showing you because of the cultural baggage you want it to carry (and I'm not saying that the movie is inconsiderate of that cultural baggage—it's not), then you're not going to get it, and too bad.

http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2017/01/white-saviors-the-micro-and-the-macro.html

the anti-Silence folks pick nits that are either non-existent or entirely beside the point, conveniently skirting the fact that this is an adaptation of a Japanese novel.

he might be surprised to know that directors often add their own ideas, or just their own ways of seeing a text, too.

If you're looking at it and going down a list of the things you think it should be showing you because of the cultural baggage you want it to carry (and I'm not saying that the movie is inconsiderate of that cultural baggage—it's not), then you're not going to get it, and too bad.

ha. i do love how unquestioningly religious people seem to be about this film. im sure MS (and the church) would be pleased.

people seem to confuse those who found the film beautiful, rich, provocative, and all the rest of it, but still found aspects lacking (which for a film about so many important questions, is surely no unnatural thing), with those dismissing it outright. and from the glut of positive reviews it seems to have gotten (it feels like there is a certain politeness in the few reviews ive read about it), it doesnt seem like there are THAT many 'anti silence' people out there. i could be off base though, ive not been desperate to read every think piece or editorial about it. i get that ppl have perhaps reached saturation point w/r/t white saviours, bechdel tests, minority representation, etc, in cinema and TV, but i dont see silence as a film about white saviours (white martyrs really), just a film that has a very particular vision about its subject and what it does and doesnt want to show, and it is quite prudent about what might get in the way of that message.

The church approved of Pasolini's St Matthew. That didn't matter because it was a great film.

Then again you are the only who questions stuff ever StillAdvance - well done!

well done on focusing on that part of my post. youre not at all petty, and clearly the bigger man. is there a way i can block your 'contributions', meaningful as they are, on this website? definitely a bug, not a feature, if not.

on second thought, im quite happy to be one of the anti silence nit picking brigade. if youre feeling a wave of christian pride watching this movie, thats great, and im glad it makes you feel all proud, powerful or whatever, but im not sure the argument about it not being fair to push all the baggage of the subject onto it IS unfair. the baggage is there for a reason, and to want to deny its importance, its presence, seems too easy. can of worms forthcoming, but its a bit like if MS (or anyone) did a film about colonialism, and made the colonialists seem wholly benign.

then again, im sure that would inspire a post like 'i probably sound like a colonial apologist (im not the descendent of any colonialists) but i think the movie becomes immeasurably richer if you take stock of what a revolutionary idea colonialism was" or similar.

StillAdvance you'll love the third reviewer in this show (starts at 2:50): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08558zv

SA - when they go high I go low.

Just bringing you down to my level.

SA - just curious, would you level the same criticism at Endo's novel? (the narrative of the film is almost exactly the same)

secondly, and i'll drop it after this, the movie (and novel) are pretty directly critical of christianity as an arm of colonialism, the central conflicts of the story are more or less built around this criticism and aspect of christianity in a way that strikes me as even deeper than historical score settling, and it seems relatively uncontroversial and value-neutral to say that christianity was a revolutionary idea that remade the western world (in particular). your problem is not that these aspects are not there but that they are not more prominent. this is a movie about a persecuted christianity minority in a non-christian country that was not in fact colonized but indeed went on some colonial adventures of its own during the lifetime of the author.

your argument seems to be based on some sense that admirers of the film are feeling smug warm fuzzies about christianity while watching it. but it's a story about individual faith and belief, and i'm not sure what it would gain by turning into some historical study of things we all know very well.

will people see this and think "yay christianity boo japan"? alas. will some see it and think "but what about christian persecution of non-christians/colonialism etc."? alas.

to better clarify: im not saying you're wrong to want to see those things in the movie (i disagree but it's a value judgement and an aesthetic preference) but that you're emprically wrong about the content of the movie because that material is presented in a way that's far more relevant to this specific story and setting. if im saying "this movie is about x" and your response is "but it's not about y" then i have no idea what the point of the discussion is or why i should be accused of "historo-evangelizing" merely for trying to unpack the themes of the movie.

btw has anyone complained about what a harsh and one-sided depiction of buddhism is presented in this film? you'd almost think that whatever religious ideology is adopted by the ruling class becomes an excuse for oppression....

also, just as an aside, people often treat the history of religion like geology or something, but it's important to acknowledge something that a historical document can't really bring out but that a novel/film can: the history of religion involves individual people making independent individual decisions to believe, singular moments of conversion and faith.

excited to see this

while we're on the subj, the zwick/cruise "last samurai" is a bizarre blend of anticolonialism and fascist apologia. i think about that movie way too much...

I would still like a mod to delete Ken Watanabe from the thread title

Saw this today and while it looks pretty good I found it overlong and a bit po faced or something.
Found some bits of it unintentionally funny.

Was wondering what the last decent film Scorsese had made was cos I wouldn't count this as it.

Couldn't get to feeling much sympathy for the Andrew Garfield character.

& found the japanese inquisitor to be too similar to a Japanese uncle tom charicature or similar.

I didn't feel much sympathy for the guy in the Shinoda film (but obviously he didn't deserve the situation he was in). I don't feel like that was a flaw in the film though.

I thought this was incredible... a minor masterpiece, one of the best things he's ever done.

loved this

Adam Driver and Andrew Garfield looked absurd at first, as if they were in an SNL sketch, but Driver has that ability to change his face for a role, that whole hollowed out cheeks thing. I was bummed he was underused, and Garfield is one of those actors that is unable to be anyone but himself. He's one of my problem actors. But imo he redeemed himself w this.

enjoyed this a lot, don't really have an opinion beyond that - i don't share Scorsese's religious beliefs and that makes me feel conflicted about the way i think he wants me feel about the spiritual conflict but it's not a flaw in the film imo

and tbh altho i think Scorsese tries to weigh the arguments slightly toward the missionaries' side i'm not sure he really succeeds - i think the ambivalence towards religion and religious difference is pretty rich in this

Ending was very different from the Shinoda film, both in the feelings and what they show you.

one technical complaint - yeah i know it's Scorsese - might be that the epilogue/voiced over denouement is a little too long and deflates the rhythm of the rest of the movie

i plan to see this again and i'm particularly interested in how that part plays a second time...it's not exactly the same as the book but it's similarly a kind of increasingly distant denouement (which scorsese then radically reverses in the final shot).

I will definitely watch this again at some point, and consider my quibbles minor at this point

i don't share Scorsese's religious beliefs

I don't think Scorsese is a 'believer'

from reading the interviews, it would be hard to tell he wasn't a believer

but anyway, this was very good

i plan to rewatch it because it definitely felt like a minor masterpiece in my books

the moment that's sticking with me the most is the man singing on the cross and then being washed away. just devastating

thing that is very clear as someone that was raised roman catholic is that this is very much a jesuitic film, and embodies the difficulties and philosophical/theological thoughts that such a person experiences

bless my roman catholic mothers heart but if she saw this film she would be appalled

as a boy i happened to have fallen off that traditional track and explored the teachings of the jesuits informally and sense that there is a lot of subtly suggested meaning, which makes this a very spiritual film and as father martin says, a prayer

Why would your mother be appalled?

this is very much a jesuitic film

if so, I would expect the film to seethe with doubts and hidden despair, while simultaneously having a full set of finely honed intellectual reasons why those doubts and despairs should not exist. I'd further expect that all those reasons are ultimately ineffective, so that the doubts and despairs remain untouched and the despairing doubter is left believing his feelings are prima facieevidence of his own wretched, sinful, unredeemed soul.

oh right context

she was alive during pope john paul ii and roman catholic meaning someone who is ultra conservative and in favour of all the popes stances of that time

im not sure shed agree but i sometimes think she might have been influenced a little by opus dei, but the good parts of it (things get complicated if i explain)

xp

Was nice to see Tsukamoto in a role like this.

Been trying to get my head around Scorsese's answer to this question in Sight and Sound.

http://i.imgur.com/1WPLlsx.png

So … did Jesus tell him to do it or not?

to quote "A Serious Man", embrace the mystery

Ha.

I think the only way to make it consistent is for "That's real" to mean "Ferreira really perceived a voice", for "And Jesus tells him to do it" to mean "He perceives the voice being Jesus telling him to do it", and for the final 'it" to mean "the real voice of Jesus".

All a bit lost in transcription, I think.

ive not read that interview so maybe context is missing but from that excerpt scorsese seems to be saying:

(1) 'did he really' = did ferreira rly say it or doubt it (im inclined to interpret it as, 'did ferreira really doubt it?')
(2) then scorsese clarifies that ferreira did doubt it and lost his convictions/beliefs therefore didnt hear jesus's voice
(3) 'he hears that voice' = rodrigues hears the voice of jesus undoubtedly

filling in the blanks from the before and after of that question, ferreira does it for shallower reasons. put another way, rodrigues' faith runs deeper than ferreira's, and whether it exists in the latter is dubious

where theres a jesus theres a judas