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

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

tho kichijiro plays the role of judas it shld be said

video of fr james interviewing scorsese btw

https://youtu.be/TbYiGdinejU

from http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/full-transcript-interview-martin-scorsese

(morbs posted an edited transcription of the interview i believe)

fr martin

hehe

(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

Ah, I've got it now – that makes sense, thanks.

yw

There is still a certain ambiguity in the idea that doubters cannot hear the voice of jesus speaking to them, while people with perfect faith can hear the voice of jesus. bcz, neither the church nor scorsese can say with finality how to authenticate such a voice.

depends what denomination you follow or lack thereof

I thought I heard the voice of Jesus during a silent prayer at youth group but then realized someone had Benson on in the other room

what would be the detectable difference then between a harmless delusion, which delivers a message consonant with the teachings of the church but felt as the immediate presence of jesus, and the actual voice of jesus delivering a message for that person alone, but in consonance with the teaching of the church?

Jesus's voice is sexy

Jesus in this movie sounded like Liam Neeson's character speaking which was weird

Yes, the S&S interviewer, like me, thought it actually was Neeson doing the Jesus voice:

https://i.imgur.com/WhBnKhI.jpg

what would be the detectable difference then between a harmless delusion, which delivers a message consonant with the teachings of the church but felt as the immediate presence of jesus, and the actual voice of jesus delivering a message for that person alone, but in consonance with the teaching of the church?

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Monday, 16 January 2017 22:16 (eleven minutes ago) Permalink

what do you mean by harmless delusion?

the church is ever changing

remember that even amongst jesuits there were and are conflicts between what the church should have stood for and what it should stand for -- has been since its inception and it is thusly now

my fundie Church considered Catholics phony baloney without actually coming out and saying it.

not sure why the interview video didnt embed so trying again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbYiGdinejU