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

seeing this tomorrow with my recently un-lapsed catholic parents

I quit criticism about 3 years ago, nomar. I have not seen the film yet because I could not get up early enough for a cheap matinee during the holidaze.

This post might be a bit spoilery

The stylistic choices Scorsese made are def p interesting here - there are one or two Mizogouchi-like moments (shots of boats on misty waters) but I was surprised that he pretty much resisted long tracking shots in favour of yes, shot-countershot (in other words, the film sticks very closely to the traditions/methods of classical American narrative cinema). You can imagine a much more 'hysterical' approach to the same subject matter (only really present in some of the performances - Garfield seems to spend much of the film weeping); so the film's almost complete lack of a musical score, the sounds of 'nature' that open and close the film, the limited colour palette (a lot of brown) and the mostly discrete handling of the violence and torture all speak to the silence of the title. This is a contemplative movie about gigantic human feelings and beliefs.

Felt there were a couple of mis-steps - the voice of Christ moment, and the final shot, which is as hokey as Spielberg at his pandering worst - but you certainly couldn't accuse Scorsese of resting on his laurels. It's inspiring to see such a big name director trying something new so late into his career.

at first blush this felt like a masterpiece. i was overwhelmed by it. i'm sure i'll temper that later but wow.

I love this movie too

much to say but regarding style there was two (at least) really striking moments in which the camera rapidly pulls out and up in moments of extreme pain--but that final shot, which did not strike me as sentimental or in poor taste, reverses that camera movement in a really powerful way.

i also appreciated the permutations of the title, from the obvious silence of God to a kind of devotional silence by the end.

it is really great i believe. and out of all of scorsese's output since the '90s this one is by far the least audience friendly in terms of how it treats religion seriously and intelligently, how much of the dialogue is given over to interfaith dialogue both hostile and diplomatic, the seeming pointlessness of the tortures (none of which are particularly grisly, this is a relatively sedate film for scorsese by those standards), the switch from ego keeping hold to complete loss of control by the end for the main characters. etc etc

i wasn't quite sure of the choice to depict the face of christ in the movie so explicitly and frequently (in the book it's an effective literary device, particularly since the protagonist muses often on the fact that Jesus's face is never described in the bible) but among the many images that linger with me from this movie it's mostly the faces, the fear and agony of the tortured japanese christians in particular but also garfield's very open and expressive demeanor, the magistrate's smugness, neeson's inexpressiveness which becomes garfield's later on.

(also lots of talk about faces in the dialogue, "i can see your face," as one of the authorities says to a christian peasant after trampling...)

Heard that the only English translation of the book is awful.

the translation did strike me as a bit flat-footed--not that i can compare it to the original.

Remarkable film. More thoughts later but am so glad it was Scorsese who made this.

and not Innaritu?

^we were all thinking it

Still a slightly weird thing to write about a remake...

kind of, I guess - I just took it as shorthand: Scorsese is the best fit for this material among current directors who might conceivably have adapted it

(also remake is imprecise imo)

If this were a remake of the '70s film rather than a film of the novel then yeah it would be a weird thing to say. Smdh

Xpost This is what I meant re: Scorsese.

lol this exact conversation plays out upthread

this got considerably better in the second half, once garfields character had repeated the same 'why must they suffer' spiel ten times over, when it finally got into some debate over its subject. but it failed to move past its grevious christian missionary pity, never once asking, is the actual mission of missionaries a noble one, or rather, was the way many christian missionaries acted noble? was it 'christian'? im no expert on the faith in japan, but you dont have to be a scholar to know all the crimes of missionaries across the globe. but if you didnt, this film would not let you know. such an admission would no doubt ruin the entire premise. other than that, its one of MS' most sensitively made films. a minor addition in his filmography overall, but a significant one. but i had had enough of the monotony of the driver and garfield characters voiceovers after an hour.

i meant, i had just had enough of voiceovers (dont think driver did any voiceover)

voiceovers

this is a Scorsese film ffs, we got off light

s the actual mission of missionaries a noble one

this is more or less one of the central questions confronted by the protagonist. and colonialism and the historical transgressions of the church are definitely implicitly and explicitly present.

anyway not terribly interested in debating this at length but suffice it to say that i don't think both side-ism is a really useful way to talk about this film or topic.

i probably sound like a catholic or christian apologist (im not a christian) but i think the movie becomes immeasurably richer if you take stock of what a revolutionary idea christianity was and is in certain contexts--what an incredibly disrupting force it was (for good and ill) and its radical revaluation of human life. seen in that context an image of a japanese peasant refusing to trample (refusing to renounce the meaning and value of his/her own life) and facing actual fucking crucifixion in the ocean, being burned alive ("on fire with faith"), or drowned at sea becomes incredibly powerful--to me anyway.

Silence has been filmed twice before, once by Masahiro Shinoda, and once by Joao Mario Grilo. Which makes sense for a story of Portuguese monks in Japan. It's still a weird thing to say about a film that's been done twice before, since clearly Scorcese's take doesn't preclude someone doing a fourth version.

Every film is better for not having been made by Innaritu, but come on, in no way is Scorcese the best fit for the third version about this book. Joao Pedro Rodrigues just made an incredibly weird biopic about St Antonius of Padua, and has done film before on Portuguese colonialism, how amazing would his version have been? Or perhaps Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Naomi Kawase or Koji Fukada, what's their view on the disruptive power of christianity in Japan?

being burned alive ("on fire with faith")

use of CGI fire really bugged me tbh

my favorite opinions on film are definitely the "i haven't seen this movie but i have opinions anyway" variety

especially when it's the same bullshit virtue signaling we put up with all last year in the election threads. welcome back fred

My favorite posts are definitely the 'I haven't contributed to this thread at all before, but I simply can't give up the chance to shit on this other poster'. That always really makes a thread move in the right direction.

But what's your opinion on late period Martin Scorcese, contra the vitality of Japanese and Portuguese cinema, k3v?

just gonna

Scorsese

carry on

Oh, ffs. Be right back, I have a pitch to proofread...

did i get transported into that scene from good will hunting y/n

anyway scorsese makes good movies and even though he's white and american i'm looking forward to seeing this when it opens

I agree. He has been on a roll this decade. The Rodrigues version of this would be SO GOOD, though.

this is more or less one of the central questions confronted by the protagonist. and colonialism and the historical transgressions of the church are definitely implicitly and explicitly present.

― ryan, Sunday, 8 January 2017 20:23 (one hour ago) Permalink

anyway not terribly interested in debating this at length but suffice it to say that i don't think both side-ism is a really useful way to talk about this film or topic.

i probably sound like a catholic or christian apologist (im not a christian) but i think the movie becomes immeasurably richer if you take stock of what a revolutionary idea christianity was and is in certain contexts--what an incredibly disrupting force it was (for good and ill) and its radical revaluation of human life. seen in that context an image of a japanese peasant refusing to trample (refusing to renounce the meaning and value of his/her own life) and facing actual fucking crucifixion in the ocean, being burned alive ("on fire with faith"), or drowned at sea becomes incredibly powerful--to me anyway.

well that last post makes any point in discussing this probably moot (and yes, it was a disrupting force, but the film doesnt quite seem able to note this) but its not about both sideism. its about accepting this is missionary propaganda. its in love with faith. with the concept of faith. the display of it. the belief in it. but its depiction only of that is at best convenient, at worst, intellectually dishonest. and it does not make the film richer. it makes it weakly, lazily myopic.

i understand a lot of people watching this, esp MS fans, love the mythology of religion/the commitment of believers/films which espouse these things (usually without actually wanting to sign on as a member of any faith, only to see it romantically depicted on screen), but the protagonist confronts the notion of japanese ppl accepting christianity, the idea of a religion being adopted by those of another culture/continent, but it does not, *ever* IIRC, confront the idea of these priests on their missions resorting to pretty heinous tactics and practices.

im all for seeing how cruelly innocent believers were unjustly punished merely for being christian, but for their to be no recognition, for no mention in those conversations, of the shit that priests did to accomplish their goals, was a major flaw of the film.

if however, you have no connection to places/people these practices were carried out on, then i understand that you might find it a bit tougher to consider why this may be seen as a failing.

i did not mean to be dismissive of your point but merely that i fear we'd be arguing over wanting to see different movies.

one scene thought that at least implicitly accuses even well meaning priests is the drowning scene and the adam driver character's heroic and yet totally inadequate response to it. he fails them.

i probably sound like a catholic or christian apologist (im not a christian) but i think the movie becomes immeasurably richer if you take stock of what a revolutionary idea christianity was and is in certain contexts--what an incredibly disrupting force it was (for good and ill) and its radical revaluation of human life. seen in that context an image of a japanese peasant refusing to trample (refusing to renounce the meaning and value of his/her own life) and facing actual fucking crucifixion in the ocean, being burned alive ("on fire with faith"), or drowned at sea becomes incredibly powerful--to me anyway.
― ryan, Sunday, January 8, 2017 4:34 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don’t know why this should be, but Christianity always becomes incredibly poignant when in the underdog role—the clandestine, catacomb Christianity.

I think so too. And I found it in the Japanese actors. Shinya Tsukamoto playing Mokichi; Yoshi Oida, who plays Ichizo: he’s 83 years old. There’s something about people understanding that they matter, that they have a spirit, that they have a soul. And that they’re not just chattel. Something that, as a concept, was one of the things that undid the ancient world system of slavery. It was a new concept, that everyone was equal in that sense of their having a soul, their lives being of value. And I think that’s what gave the Japanese Christians something special. Even if at times, it was misinterpreted, it still gave them something special that they did not have before. I’m not one of them, so I can’t speak of it in definitive terms. The way Endo presents it—Rodrigues says it in the voiceover: they work like beasts, but Christ did not die for the beautiful, he died for the ugly; he died for the evil ones, too. It’s easy to die for the beautiful and the good. So, that’s really interesting. That changes our way of seeing the world. Beyond revolution. That’s what I found in the making of the picture, too.

^scorsese gets it.

another way of putting it (and let me say here that i think the movie and novel both contain complexities that go beyond this) is that the climactic moment involves the protagonist recognizing that the sinular suffering of these japanese souls is to be recognized--that the singular quality of their lives matters--and is more important than Christianity as a doctrine, as a public profession of faith, or his own desire for christlike martyrdom. this is to argue for christianity as a principle that undoes principles, undoes ideologies and doctrines.

singular suffering...though "sinular" has a ring to it.

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.