|
Escobarbarian posted:Or does he? Again, it's Ciaran Hinds' voice. I saw it as entirely his imagination. I kind of saw it that way too, but I'm also not sure it matters. It's kind of a create your own destiny thing. Yes the voice of Jesus is coming from his limited perspective, but Jesus is still talking to him and because of that he is able to accept accept himself. He ultimately does the right thing and weather it's coming from himself or his belief system it's still the right thing.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
Well of course it matters if the literal voice of god appears in a movie that's all about the absence/silence of god and characters trying to hold on to their faith in spite of that. I took it as him imagining what he needed to hear to stomach it, as he would have been a lot more confident if god actually spoke to him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Well of course it matters if the literal voice of god appears in a movie that's all about the absence/silence of god and characters trying to hold on to their faith in spite of that. I took it as him imagining what he needed to hear to stomach it, as he would have been a lot more confident if god actually spoke to him. I mean it doesn't matter what voice he hears as the voice of god. Not that god talked to him in the first place. Even if it comes from a limited perspective he still found what he was looking for. That there is the self discovery whether it comes from his belief system or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Just a random thought: the title Silence refers not (only) to God's silence, but to the way in which it is perfectly acceptable, from the perspective of Christian salvation, to keep your own faith "silent." Rodriguez and Ferreira both retain their faith even after renouncing it superficially. They've realized that it can be a personal, inner thing; that praying openly, wearing symbolic trinkets and confessing to a priest aren't necessary. In a way it's analogous to the views of Catholics vs many Protestants.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
And a proper review: Scorsese proves once again that he's one of the most versatile directors alive. This film is nothing like anything he's made before. It's extremely well shot, although he intentionally holds back on making the Japanese landscape look as beautiful as it really is. Much like the tone of the film, his visual style is subdued. Don't get me wrong, it's a great looking movie, just in its own muted way. As a former Christian of ~25 years, and someone who constantly struggled to differentiate what was in my head and what was in my heart, this movie speaks volumes to me. Even now, looking at it from an atheistic perspective, the movie hits deep. It doesn't provide simple answers. You can tell it's the work of a person who has struggled deeply with his own faith and is still searching for the answers. It's a film that needs to be studied by the religious and non-religious alike. It's this kind of film, not garbage like Left Behind or God's Not Dead, that should be shown in Sunday schools. I do have some quibbles. I think the pacing in the middle act is off. There were one or two too many of the "will he or won't he apostatize?" sequences, and it got a little bit repetitive. I think 20 minutes could be shed and the movie would have been better for it. But it's a really solid movie, and one of Scorsese's most personal and important works. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:he intentionally holds back on making the Japanese landscape look as beautiful as it really is. The film was shot in Taiwan. That may be why he didn't capture the beauty of Japanese landscapes. That being said I do like your reasoning and agree with your views on the film. It was certainly a solid and thought provoking movie. My friend stood up as soon as the credits started rolling and the cinema was silent. Everybody was just sitting there trying to unravel and understand what they had just watched. It was a truly different experience than most films and another great piece of art for Scorsese to add to his filmography.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
So here's an (maybe?) interesting behind the scenes fact I wanted to share with you guys: I'm working for the German distributor of this and we're currently in the process of preparing the German dub. The English dialogue and spotting lists usually contain every last piece and bit of information about what's being said and the intention of it. What's left out, however, is the fact that the "Voice of Jesus" is spoken by Ciarán Hinds which made us curious. So we asked the producers and received a response by Thelma Schoonmaker (editor): First of all she confirmed that it is Hinds' voice we hear, BUT Martin Scorsese - direct quote - Thelma Schoonmaker posted:Would prefer that the audience not realize that. We don't want the audience thinking that FATHER VALIGNANO is speaking in the scene where RODRIGUES finally steps on the fumie. It must sound as if JESUS is talking to RODRIUGES (sic). They modified his voice through filters and equalizers to make it sound differently. We even got permission to cast a different voice actor if it fits the role of Jesus better than the one we use for Ciarán Hinds, which IMO changes the meaning of the scene dramatically because you lose the connection Rodrigues has to Valignano. What do you make of this? Does it change the way you feel about the scene or even Andrew Garfield's character? AlexF fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Jan 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
That's really goddamn interesting, actually.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 11:16
|
|
|
That is interesting. It's too early in the morning for me to think too deeply about this and I didn't go to sleep the night before, but my guess is that they wanted the voice of "Jesus" to sound familiar but for audiences to not be able to place where they've heard it before. My own guess as I was watching the movie was that it was a distorted version of Liam Neeson's voice, which would have had plenty of implications on its own. If its not the voice of Valignano, I do agree that you lose some subtext/ambiguity. Raxivace fucked around with this message at 11:33 on Jan 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:If its not the voice of Valignano, I do agree that you lose some subtext/ambiguity. At the least, it feels right to have Rodrigues' spiritual world defined so personally. The voice of Jesus would sound familiar to someone like that; his entire inner monologue is actually his one-sided dialogue with God. I definitely didn't recognize the voice, but I still didn't consider for a second that it was real. The fresco Jesus-face that shows up felt similar: he was seeing his projection of Christ, his imagination. The film is more or less agnostic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
Just came back from watching this. I went in not knowing that Endo was influenced by Greene's The Power and the Glory, and it strikes me how the context of the situations, while similar, changed with the stakes being more grim in Silence From the Whisky Priest who's afraid to meet his end, you have Rodrigues' who's ready and willing to seek his own martyrdom. The Inquisitor might have made the mistakes of the Lieutenant by targeting the priests, but changes the strategy to target the followers in an effort to break break what priests remain. The Power and the Glory still covers this ground, but to a smaller degree - there's a village execution in an effort to flush out information on the priest's whereabouts, and an apostate priest who has definitively renounced his faith, which the Lieutenant takes pleasure in. But where the Lieutenant is left with a kind of Pyrrhic victory, the Inquisitor feels he's won. There's a more overt triumphalism with POTG, where the Whisky Priest is caught, but with hope prevailing as the story ends with a new priest's arrival, suggesting suppression cannot win. But the Catholic victory in Silence[ is literally that - the sense of victory cannot be demonstrated outright. Arguably, you can say the suppression worked, the Church loses, but the faith does not. To sum it up, if The Power and the Glory is the trial of faith played on Hard Mode, then Silence takes it up to Nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
suburban virgin posted:At what point can we give up on the spoiler bars? There's only gonna be like twelve people who watch this move and it's not like it's ridden with sudden plot twists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:Yeah, I'm an atheist, and I have to say, there are a lot of atheists in this thread who are completely missing this point. I mean, Christ, try inhabiting someone else's perspective for a second. Same here. I'm not religious and even if I was I come from a mixed Jewish/Protestant home, but the emotional and spiritual component of the film moved me intensely. I'm not really clear on what Scorsese's current relationship to the church and his Catholic faith is, but it regardless is a film clearly coming from somebody with a deep understanding of that sacred bond between man and God and the anguish that comes with turning your back on Him. Anyway, hopped in to say I just watched Masahiro Shinoda's 1971 version of the film, which is up on FilmStruck if anyone's got that, and it's good but vastly inferior. Scorsese really explored the religious component with more reverence and guilt, plus Scorsese's actors delivered far greater performances. But what this version does really well is up the intensity and suspense. There's a scene that I don't believe is in the remake where a man is buried in the ground with only his head sticking out and they run a horse over his head again and again while his wife watches. If this scene is in the remake please remind me, a lot happens in that film, but I haven't felt that irked and on edge by a movie in a good while than I did during that scene.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:I'm not really clear on what Scorsese's current relationship to the church and his Catholic faith is
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Did this movie come out too late for 2017 Oscars or did it just get snubbed? I think Andrew Garfield was deserving of a nomination here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Did this movie come out too late for 2017 Oscars or did it just get snubbed? I think Andrew Garfield was deserving of a nomination here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Did this movie come out too late for 2017 Oscars or did it just get snubbed? I think Andrew Garfield was deserving of a nomination here. I think it came out too late with too little a PR push for it to gain any real traction. I agree that Garfield was way better in this than Hacksaw Ridge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:I think it came out too late with too little a PR push for it to gain any real traction. It really got robbed. Definitely one of the best movies of the year, but I feel like religious Scorsese can get swept under the rug in general. How often do you hear people talk about Kundun after all?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
I am surprised there are so few people talking about this movie, then again, the movie theatre room was like 90% people over their 50s and 60s, with a scattering of younger people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
Any theories as to why this movie bombed so badly? I get that lengthy religious-themed dramas aren't everyone's bag, but then again it's Scorsese + Neeson + two popular up and comers. Was it poorly marketed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:Any theories as to why this movie bombed so badly? I get that lengthy religious-themed dramas aren't everyone's bag, but then again it's Scorsese + Neeson + two popular up and comers. Was it poorly marketed? People are really into Disney movies right now, and I think a lot of people really don't enjoy slow moving existential dramas with no real crime element. That being said though the advertising on this was pretty crappy. If I told anyone I was seeing silence they gave me a blank stare. I saw only a couple posters and I barely saw any ads on tv.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:Any theories as to why this movie bombed so badly? I get that lengthy religious-themed dramas aren't everyone's bag, but then again it's Scorsese + Neeson + two popular up and comers. Was it poorly marketed? It's pretty niche
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
I don't think this film would have done well even 20-30 years ago, when similar films were more common and mainstream. The subject matter just doesn't appeal to American audiences enough for it to recoup its budget without sweeping the Oscars or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
I guess it needed a Marvel Universe tie-in...
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
It's too ambiguous in it's message and violent compared to poo poo like God's Not Dead to be something that would bring out most of the religious moviegoing crowd (violence is only tolerable if it involves Jesus himself I guess) and it's too serious and religious to look appealing to the secular masses that just want to see poo poo get blowed up/shot. Scorsese's name doesn't have the cinematic currency it once had for the average moviegoer unless DiCaprio is involved. Even the reviews, while generally positive, weren't glowing, so it had little hype and didn't generate any Oscar buzz (on that point, I thought Garfield was miscast myself). And yeah, the marketing was nonexistent. I'm the only person I know who saw it, and only a couple of movie-conscious friends had even heard of it. It just didn't have a home, and it seemed like nobody wanted to really give it one, which is a shame because for the most part it's a pretty amazing film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
It may not quite have its audience now though I think time will be kind to Silence. Or at least I hope so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Totally agreed. I personally think it's up there with Marty's best, and I wouldn't be surprised if it gained more acclaim in the coming years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 10:00
|
|
|
I really enjoyed this film, and I don't think I've ever seen a more faithful adaptation of a book before. There didn't seem to be a single moment added or subtracted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
I really wanted to go see it but it left theaters near me soooo quickly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
ozza posted:I really enjoyed this film, and I don't think I've ever seen a more faithful adaptation of a book before. There didn't seem to be a single moment added or subtracted. Except for the ending, no? Scorsese makes it clear that Garfield's character always stayed Christian at heart but the book is neutral on this point. It bombed in Germany as well but we didn't really expect great numbers anyway. The press, people from the industry and our team agreed before: This is a drat fine movie but no one except people who deeply care about cinema will be up for 160 minutes of a slow burn and a topic like this. The length was also a real problem for programming: Theatres didn't want to show this for matinee or afternoon screenings so they'd schedule it for the evening where you can have one showing because no one will turn up at 10pm and sit on their rear end until 1am. You can of course try to trick people into seeing it on name recognition alone but word of mouth will tank it after the first weekend anyway. We tried this a few years ago with Tree of Life (our marketing campaign for Germany was "It's got BRAD PITT AND SEAN PENN pleasecomeseeourmovie!") and all you get is angry customers and theatre owners. Funny thing is that my mom still wants to watch that one based on exactly these two names and I always have to stop her because she'll just be so disappointed afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:And a proper review: A great point. While it was shot in Taiwan, I also feel like the footage was intentionally subdued. The movie is really growing on me. The concept of the doubting believer is a very good subject for art (Bergman was very interested in it) and I think there's a lot of interesting aspects of this. I also feel the subdued, stark, imagery coupled with the excellent sound-production helps underline the horrors of the persecutions without making it torture-porn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
AlexF posted:Except for the ending, no? Although that very last little shot wasn't described in the book, you could argue that it proved nothing definitive - it's not as if he carried to to his death (his wife snuck it into his hands), and the fact that he presumably kept it throughout his life I took to be just another sign of his never ending struggle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
suburban virgin posted:At what point can we give up on the spoiler bars? There's only gonna be like twelve people who watch this move and it's not like it's ridden with sudden plot twists. This is a fair point but the movie doesn't do a very good job of making it clear. I think this is one of those stories that kind of inherently works better as a novel (I'm gearing up to read the novel, so we'll see if I'm right). Still, not a bad movie, although I thought Driver and Garfield's attempts at a Portuguese accent were pretty bad (they really should've just pulled a Last Temptation of Christ and just let everyone speak in their own accents, I mean Liam Neeson was basically doing that anyway) and I definitely think it's the weakest of its spiritual trilogy (Last Tempation, Kundun, and this).
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:This is a fair point but the movie doesn't do a very good job of making it clear. So, for the typical viewer, I imagine that the protagonist's struggle is just going to come across as frustrating. In the sense that they'll think that the obvious thing that the character should have been doing was to just play along with the inquisitor, because they just can't grasp the protagonist's perspective, and they aren't trying to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
I feel like you really have to have an understanding of the culture behind proselytizing religion or missionary work in general, not just Catholicism. I feel like a lot of American culture is pervasive with this concept and most Americans would have enough of a familiarity with and would understand the struggle the priests are dealing with, regardless of whether they are Catholic, Mormon, Lutheran, atheist. I guess I mostly identified the title with the cultural identify and responsiveness of the persecuted Japanese. I'll have to rewatch to consider other angles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
As an atheist who has disdain for the idea of proselytizing religion, I definitely feel like I probably had a much different experience with the movie than someone else might. That's definitely a good thing though, the movie has a lot to unpack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
AvesPKS posted:I feel like you really have to have an understanding of the culture behind proselytizing religion or missionary work in general, not just Catholicism. I feel like a lot of American culture is pervasive with this concept and most Americans would have enough of a familiarity with and would understand the struggle the priests are dealing with, regardless of whether they are Catholic, Mormon, Lutheran, atheist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:As an atheist who has disdain for the idea of proselytizing religion, I definitely feel like I probably had a much different experience with the movie than someone else might. That's definitely a good thing though, the movie has a lot to unpack. Ersatz fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Apr 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:Those are fair points, but I often find myself wondering what proportion of modern Christians -really- believe in God, heaven, hell, and the whole thing, as opposed to simply identifying with the religion and showing up to church every now and then. And I think it would be easy for someone like that to miss the point. Anecdotal evidence: I was a hospital chaplain for a few years in the South/Bible Belt and part of my job was to work with people's faiths, whatever that might be. What I found is that even though most of the individuals I talked to identified themselves as protestants (mostly Southern Baptists), what they actually believed was usually far different than what I would consider orthodox. If you define "belief system" beyond formalized religion, you'll find that what gives people hope, meaning, purpose, etc. can be quite different than the formal doctrines they professed. Most guys went to church every Sunday but by their admission, they "find" God when they're out hiking on a mountain, fishing, or otherwise out in nature. If you go by this definition, they're pantheists more than anything but they're blissfully ignorant and if you pointed it out to them, they'd deny it. There's a huge difference between professed beliefs and practiced beliefs and even though they're often contradictory, they seem to live side-by-side without much issue most of the time. Now, for a priest like Rodriguez, they "ought" to be one-and-the-same, which is the crux of the tension in the entire novel/movie, but as I learned through chaplaincy, one's faith is often more than intellectual assent. When it's only intellectual assent, it gets discarded in crisis and what people actually believe comes out. However, if one's faith doesn't allow room for doubt or is dogmatically rigid, the "lapse" creates an internal feedback loop of regret and shame. For those in that boat, it's all-or-none thinking and without certainty, you lose it all. On-topic: Movie was good, novel was better but most are. Kichijiro was spot-on to how I envisioned him. I agree with the sentiment that Joe Movie Goer would probably not understand the struggle in the film unless he/she was fairly devout. Likewise, the subject matter itself and the ambiguous ending is not something the "God's Not Dead" crowd would ever entertain. I'm not surprised it didn't do well at the box office despite the cast/director. FooF fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Apr 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
I guess I'm kind of confused by where the conversation has strayed to. The Jesuits/Catholics went to Japan to convert people to Catholicism. By persecuting the Jesuits (as well as the followers) through discrediting and debasement the Japanese officials/government were able to slow/stop the spread of Catholicism. They turned the Priests into living symbols of anti-Catholicism (as opposed to the martyrdom some had hoped for). Are people saying this was hard to follow or understand? I thought this was all laid out pretty clearly in the movie. Or perhaps I've missed something. And maybe you do need some familiarity with proselytizing religion but... You shouldn't have to believe in vigorous religious conversion to understand the concept and empathize with someone caught in the dilemma the protagonist finds himself in. Anybody who's seen Orgasmo or one of a number of South Park episodes should understand proselytizing religion. Of course if the viewer didn't grow up with at least a passing familiarity with the concept then I concede that the movie loses the ability to resonate as much. The Founder may not resonate with a non-American as much as it does with someone who grew up seeing McDonald's all over the place, but you could still explain the concept to someone in about 5 minutes and they'd understand what the movie was about and the impact of Ray Kroc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 14:32
|
|