MOVIES: 'The Mission' - 1986 film

[colliric]

Beautiful cinematography, interesting topic, and 3 great actors made this film about the south American closure of Jesuit’s missions, brilliant.

It’s so sad how sometimes political climates in order to prevent warfare, can force the church to do something it wouldn’t normally do.

great film.

 

[blessedtoo]

I was expecting this movie to arrive in my mailbox today and it hasn’t! Now I’m even more upset!
Thanks for the review. Will revisit after I’ve seen it.

 

[colliric]

I was expecting this movie to arrive in my mailbox today and it hasn’t! Now I’m even more upset!
Thanks for the review. Will revisit after I’ve seen it.

A young Liam Neeson really shines in one of the supporting roles, but Robert De Niro and Jeremy Irons deliver their very best here.

Beware, it’s very sad.

 

[Lissla_Lissar]

It’s one of the most beautiful movies I’ve ever seen. Very sad, but lovely.

 

[Integritus]

I too really enjoyed this movie and though it did a pretty good job of demonstarting the difference between secular men with Catholic backgrounds, and Catholic clergymen with no political agendas. However, I’ve heard from someone that the late John Paul II did not give his recommendation for this movie because of its mischaracterization on clergy (such as Robert De Niro’s decision as a priest to take arms to defend the native Indians against the invading secular Portuguese army led by the anti-clerical King of Portugal at the time).

Anyone know if this is true?

ps. It’s too bad some of the main actors in The Mission have down the years taken roles in movies with subtle anti-Christian messages in them.

 

[colliric]

I too really enjoyed this movie and though it did a pretty good job of demonstarting the difference between secular men with Catholic backgrounds, and Catholic clergymen with no political agendas. However, I’ve heard from someone that the late John Paul II did not give his recommendation for this movie because of its mischaracterization on clergy (such as Robert De Niro’s decision as a priest to take arms to defend the native Indians against the invading secular Portuguese army led by the anti-clerical King of Portugal at the time).

**Anyone know if this is true? **
ps. It’s too bad some of the main actors in The Mission have down the years taken roles in movies with subtle anti-Christian messages in them.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it is true, while the film is clearly pro-catholic, it casts the catholic church as the victim of warring nations, and seems to say that particular clergyman refusing to give up the minestry even to the point of violence was his own choice and not the church’s decision.

And Robert De Niro has certainly starred in subtile anti-christian films, this film is not nessecerily his idea or view, it was the writer and directors artpeice, He simply acted in it and did a very good job of it.

 

[blessedtoo]

This movie better be in my mailbox tomorrow!!!

 

[Cradle]

I thought Robert DeNiro wasn’t playing a priest… And the priest that I do remember (Neeson) did not act with violence. He faced the bullets of the oncoming whatever-they-were (sorry, I don’t remember…) with the Eucharist in monstrance before him and the indigenous community behind him. That doesn’t seem to me an act of violence.

 

[colliric]

I thought Robert DeNiro wasn’t playing a priest… And the priest that I do remember (Neeson) did not act with violence. He faced the bullets of the oncoming whatever-they-were (sorry, I don’t remember…) with the Eucharist in monstrance before him and the indigenous community behind him. That doesn’t seem to me an act of violence.

His character, who is a mercenary, repents and becomes a Jesuit priest and is welcomed into the order by Jeremy Irons’ character. Then when the church decides to leave the mission unguarded, He renounces the priesthood simply by saying he will stay and defend, His faith remains yet he once again becomes a mercenary and kills to defend the church and Indians from being destroyed.

Neeson’s character also renounces the priesthood in order to defend the mission. He too uses violence and ambushes the attackers. You are confusing his character with Jeremy Irons character, Jeremy irons plays the lead priest of the mission and he refuses to use violent means of vigilant defense although he understand why they choose to do it(in defense of themselves and the lives of the indians). His character is the one who celebrates communion with the indians as the fire arrows start hitting the church.

 

[CathCentrist]

As I am slightly partial to some of the tenets of Liberation theology I condone their actions

 

[Bennie_P]

As I am slightly partial to some of the tenets of Liberation theology I condone their actions

That may the reason JPII didn’t endorse the film, for it did have a Liberation Theology theme and came out during the 80’s. It is one of my favorite films, though I don’t totally buy into Liberation Theology. It does give a good showing of the complexity of the history of the Church and the photography is excellent.

 

[CathCentrist]

I dont “totally” buy into ALL of it, but its wrong imo to ignore all its apsects - for me its another area of the Church failing to catch up. Look how long it took for them to even admit some aspects of evolution theory can exist side by side with creation theory and even then it was only because SCIENCE forced the Church into having no choice - the evidence of some things were too overwhelming

 

[Dirk_Skene]

I know that the basic story is true. Much of the details probably qualify as historical fiction I am sure. But does anyone here know how much of the story is accurate & how much is fiction? Just curious.

 

[Bennie_P]

I know that the basic story is true. Much of the details probably qualify as historical fiction I am sure. But does anyone here know how much of the story is accurate & how much is fiction? Just curious.

The politcal sitution is probably shown in its true light, as for the incidents in the film I believe is mainly a work of fiction. What I think the filmed shows is that the real work of the Church is with those that live spreading the gospel out day by day, person to person, despite the politics and greed of the world.

As for the Church being forced into anything, it is like conversion, it evolves as the Holy Spirit allows and we as the Church accepts and acts on the Grace given us.

*But that on the good ground are they who in a good and perfect heart, hearing the word, keep it and *bring forth fruit in patience. Luke 8:15

 

[blessedtoo]

Now that I’ve stopped crying, can someone answer this:
Did the Bishop know that the end result of his decision would be the slaughter of the whole community, including the priests?

 

[colliric]

Now that I’ve stopped crying, can someone answer this:
Did the Bishop know that the end result of his decision would be the slaughter of the whole community, including the priests?

No, He was hoping they would take his advice and leave.

 

[Lepanto]

Great movie!

Back in the days when Jesuits were Catholic and manly men!

 

[Dirk_Skene]

The politcal sitution is probably shown in its true light, as for the incidents in the film I believe is mainly a work of fiction. …

Hi Bennie, I quoted just part of your post just to show I was responding to you & not making an unrealted post.

I remember something in my collage world history class about the Jesuit fathers work in the area of ParaguaY, Bolivia & Brazil during the time of the demarkation. And I was reminded of that part of my studies when I saw the movie. The massacre, everything. But now, of course I can not find anything:banghead: I know the movie was made for Hollywood. I just kinda wanted to know if anyone here knew how much was factual.

 

[Bennie_P]

Hi Bennie, I quoted just part of your post just to show I was responding to you & not making an unrealted post.

I remember something in my collage world history class about the Jesuit fathers work in the area of ParaguaY, Bolivia & Brazil during the time of the demarkation. And I was reminded of that part of my studies when I saw the movie. The massacre, everything. But now, of course I can not find anything:banghead: I know the movie was made for Hollywood. I just kinda wanted to know if anyone here knew how much was factual.

this is from Wikipedia, which is not always the best source, (unless I agree with it )

‘* “The Mission” is based on events surrounding the Treaty of Madrid in 1750, in which Spain ceded part of Jesuit Paraguay to Portugal. The movie’s narrator, “Altamirano”, speaking in hindsight in 1758, corresponds to the actual Andalusian Jesuit Father Luis Altamirano, who had been sent to Paraguay in 1752 to transfer territory from Spain to Portugal. He oversaw the transfer of seven missions south and east of the Río Uruguay, that had been settled by Guaranis and Jesuits in the 1600s. As “compensation”, Spain had promised each mission 4,000 pesos, or fewer than 1 peso for each of the ca. 30,000 Guaranis of the seven missions, while the cultivated lands, livestock and buildings were estimated to be worth 7-16 million pesos. The movie’s climax is the Guarani War of 1754-1756, during which historical Guaranis defended their homes against Spanish-Portuguese forces implementing the Treaty of Madrid.’* more en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mission_(film

 

[banjo]

I researched this some time ago and never found any indication that Jesuit priests took up arms as shown in the movie. The following link gives more details about the Guarani missions.

newadvent.org/cathen/07045a.htm