silence film

[JPUSC]

I’m not going to pay $ for a ticket to see a movie and sit through a Zen koan directed by Mr. Scorsese who made a movie called ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ in 1988 and so this guy can fill his bank account off of me.

If you want to hand your $$ over to Mr. Scorsese and financially support him and his bank account in return for 90 minutes or so of entertainment, that’s your decision.

I encourage people not to go see whatever anti-religious, violent or full of sex films Mr. Scorsese makes:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_(film)

I really cannot comprehend why some Catholic clergy and Catholic intellectuals are promoting this turkey of a film; especially from a director who made ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ in 1988 and has made films full of graphic violence and sex. :sad_yes:

Movie Review from the Forward:


http://forward.com/culture/359046/martin-scorseses-silence-explores-faith-when-god-keeps-quiet/

It has the support of the Vatican.

The private papal audience, held in the Apostolic Palace, was announced by the Vatican press office Tuesday in a clear show of support for “Silence,” Scorsese’s passion project…

Francis, who is the first Jesuit pope, is known to have joined the Jesuit order hoping to become a missionary in Japan. American priest James Martin, who is editor of the Jesuit weekly “America,” served as a consultant on “Silence.”

The Vatican press office said Francis had received Scorsese, who was accompanied by his wife and two daughters, and described the 15-minute meeting as “very cordial.” The pope told the group that he had read Endo’s novel. He and Scorsese spoke about the experience of Jesuit missionaries in Japan…

“Silence” will screen Wednesday afternoon in the roughly 50-seat Vatican Film Library’s screening room, located in the Palazzo San Carlo, in Vatican City. It is not known whether the pope will attend.

On Tuesday, “Silence” screened for roughly 300 Jesuit priests at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, in what amounted to the film’s de facto world premiere. Attendees were able to discuss the film with Scorsese afterwards…

While it’s not unusual for new faith-based films to screen in Vatican City for audiences largely made up of clergy, it’s rare for the Vatican to become the first place where an upcoming Hollywood release gets its first public screening.

variety.com/2016/film/global/martin-scorsese-meets-pope-francis-talks-jesuit-history-prior-to-silence-screening-1201930025/amp/

 

[Dwyer]

It has the support of the Vatican.

The private papal audience, held in the Apostolic Palace, was announced by the Vatican press office Tuesday in a clear show of support for “Silence,” Scorsese’s passion project…

Francis, who is the first Jesuit pope, is known to have joined the Jesuit order hoping to become a missionary in Japan. American priest James Martin, who is editor of the Jesuit weekly “America,” served as a consultant on “Silence.”

The Vatican press office said Francis had received Scorsese, who was accompanied by his wife and two daughters, and described the 15-minute meeting as “very cordial.” The pope told the group that he had read Endo’s novel. He and Scorsese spoke about the experience of Jesuit missionaries in Japan…

“Silence” will screen Wednesday afternoon in the roughly 50-seat Vatican Film Library’s screening room, located in the Palazzo San Carlo, in Vatican City. It is not known whether the pope will attend.

On Tuesday, “Silence” screened for roughly 300 Jesuit priests at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, in what amounted to the film’s de facto world premiere. Attendees were able to discuss the film with Scorsese afterwards…

While it’s not unusual for new faith-based films to screen in Vatican City for audiences largely made up of clergy, it’s rare for the Vatican to become the first place where an upcoming Hollywood release gets its first public screening.

variety.com/2016/film/global/martin-scorsese-meets-pope-francis-talks-jesuit-history-prior-to-silence-screening-1201930025/amp/

The Pope is able to see whatever movie he wants to see; that doesn’t change my mind; I still would not go see this film and especially would not pay $ for the privilege of seeing it.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Robert Barron is a huge Scorcese Fan…

Here is his review of SILENCE…he does not condemn it, just has a different take on it…(note spoilers)

wordonfire.org/resources/article/scorseses-silence-and-the-seaside-martyrs/5360/

That was a fair review.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I liked the movie and am not sorry I saw it.

 

[Maxirad]

Click here to read Steven D. Greydanus’s review of Silence.

 

[pakengkeng]

im planning to see it,but it is not available yet in my area.im in disbelief and disheartened .the closest cinema is about 4 hr drive one way.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I just saw it, and am sorting out my thoughts on it.

Is it possible to edit the title to include the warning that this thread will include Spoilers for those who have yet to see the film?

While this post is still in a Spoiler-Free Zone, let me say that solely from a cinematic standpoint, I think it is the best thing Scorsese has ever done. The imagery is amazing. The performances by both the English-speaking and Japanese cast are excellent.

I’d also say for those thinking about seeing the film, it is engrossing but not a “feel good” movie. The hero does not triumph and outwit his enemies. In many ways, it is pretty depressing.

The tortures the Japanese government visited on Christians and missionaries (both Jesuit and Franciscan) are depicted, but to his credit, he does not dwell on the torture, in the way that Mel Gibson might have chosen to do. (Scorsese dedicates the film at the end to the Japanese Christians and Missionaries). The true torture of Fr. Rodrigo is being forced to witness the torture of others, with the price of their lives being his apostasy. This is Fr. Rodrigo’s central conundrum: what is the path to the imitation of Christ? Does he deny his own soul to save his friends from further torture and humiliation? Its hard to say “what would Jesus do?” in this case, and he has to make some hard choices.

What the film is, is an extended (it’s almost 3 hours long) meditation on two central mysteries of the Catholic faith: Faith and Forgiveness.

The need for Salvation is something that is a recurring theme in most of Scorsese’s great films, this one is more overt than most.

I don’t think that it any way glorifies apostasy (quite the opposite - it’s shown as horrible and soul-destroying), or shows a relativistic view of religions. Buddhism is not shown in a positive light, which is unusual in a Hollywood film.

The Japanese Christians are shown throughout as very human but also very praiseworthy. The priests are also humans rather than plaster saints, but both Garfield and Driver’s characters act out of the best motivations.

I recommend it highly.

SPOILERS NOW FOLLOW:

I think the film shows both the difficulties in faith when God appears to be silent, and the central need to believe in the possibilities of forgiveness, for ourselves and others, which may be the way we “hear” the voice of God even when He appears to be silent.

It’s interesting that we see the two priests administer Mass once during the film, and we see a Baptism, but the sacrament we see again and again is Confession. We see Kichijiro as failing again and again and repeatedly betraying the priests, yet returning each time to ask for the sacrament of Reconciliation. And again and again, we see Fr. Rodrigo forgive him through the sacrament, both personally and *in persona Christi. *

Liam Neeson does a great job of portraying a man who is a husk of his former self (again, I don’t see in any way that his role is glorified - it’s like listening to the Tempter himself). Garfield is also great as a priest who is attempting to emulate the life of Christ, and as he moves closer and closer to his own personal Gethsemane, his hair and beard grows longer and he looks more and more like the popular conception of Jesus. After he fails (and when he does in fact, hear the voice of Christ) - and you can hear the sound of a cock crowing thrice in the background, if you listen closely - and becomes a thrall of the Inquisitor (another great performance), he shaves his beard and pulls his hair back, becoming sleeker and losing the appearance of Jesus.

Even after his apparent loss of faith (and again, his life is not depicted glowingly - it looks more like a sort of death-in-life under a horrifying dictatorship), he appears to consent to a final sacrament of confession for the reappearing figure of Kichijiro, reflecting his willingness to forgive. The final scene shows a continuing faith for even a broken man.

The film also shows the difficulty in understanding the problem of suffering, particularly when it happens to others. Fr. Rodrigo actively seeks martyrdom, but instead is forced to witness it happening to those he loves. For anyone who has ever suffered more while watching their family or friends suffer, and wished that God would instead allow it to happen to us as Christ accepted our sins and suffered for us, this portion of the film is heart-rending.

Again, it is a think piece, not an action movie, and I would recommend it. Go see it with another Catholic and go out and have some cake and pie afterwards and talk about it.

 

[rose_kelly]

So does the end leave a sense of hope or despair? That seems to be the main issue. I have not seen this movie but I am wanting to, as I know the Pope also saw it.

But, we watch all kinds of things that are not edifying, which I try to avoid. The real question is what does God show you when you watch this?

Do you think it is worthy of our time?

It was uncomfortable to watch, but I don’t regret seeing it, because although it’s based on a period in Japanese history I knew nothing about, I have since been reading about the Japanese martyrs, and have thought about the early Christians elsewhere who suffered so much for the faith.

So in answer to your question, that’s what God showed me.

 

[rose_kelly]

I just saw it, and am sorting out my thoughts on it.

Is it possible to edit the title to include the warning that this thread will include Spoilers for those who have yet to see the film?

While this post is still in a Spoiler-Free Zone, let me say that solely from a cinematic standpoint, I think it is the best thing Scorsese has ever done. The imagery is amazing. The performances by both the English-speaking and Japanese cast are excellent.

I’d also say for those thinking about seeing the film, it is engrossing but not a “feel good” movie. The hero does not triumph and outwit his enemies. In many ways, it is pretty depressing.

The tortures the Japanese government visited on Christians and missionaries (both Jesuit and Franciscan) are depicted, but to his credit, he does not dwell on the torture, in the way that Mel Gibson might have chosen to do. (Scorsese dedicates the film at the end to the Japanese Christians and Missionaries). The true torture of Fr. Rodrigo is being forced to witness the torture of others, with the price of their lives being his apostasy. This is Fr. Rodrigo’s central conundrum: what is the path to the imitation of Christ? Does he deny his own soul to save his friends from further torture and humiliation? Its hard to say “what would Jesus do?” in this case, and he has to make some hard choices.

What the film is, is an extended (it’s almost 3 hours long) meditation on two central mysteries of the Catholic faith: Faith and Forgiveness.

The need for Salvation is something that is a recurring theme in most of Scorsese’s great films, this one is more overt than most.

I don’t think that it any way glorifies apostasy (quite the opposite - it’s shown as horrible and soul-destroying), or shows a relativistic view of religions. Buddhism is not shown in a positive light, which is unusual in a Hollywood film.

The Japanese Christians are shown throughout as very human but also very praiseworthy. The priests are also humans rather than plaster saints, but both Garfield and Driver’s characters act out of the best motivations.

I recommend it highly.

SPOILERS NOW FOLLOW:

I think the film shows both the difficulties in faith when God appears to be silent, and the central need to believe in the possibilities of forgiveness, for ourselves and others, which may be the way we “hear” the voice of God even when He appears to be silent.

It’s interesting that we see the two priests administer Mass once during the film, and we see a Baptism, but the sacrament we see again and again is Confession. We see Kichijiro as failing again and again and repeatedly betraying the priests, yet returning each time to ask for the sacrament of Reconciliation. And again and again, we see Fr. Rodrigo forgive him through the sacrament, both personally and *in persona Christi. *

Liam Neeson does a great job of portraying a man who is a husk of his former self (again, I don’t see in any way that his role is glorified - it’s like listening to the Tempter himself). Garfield is also great as a priest who is attempting to emulate the life of Christ, and as he moves closer and closer to his own personal Gethsemane, his hair and beard grows longer and he looks more and more like the popular conception of Jesus. After he fails (and when he does in fact, hear the voice of Christ) - and you can hear the sound of a cock crowing thrice in the background, if you listen closely - and becomes a thrall of the Inquisitor (another great performance), he shaves his beard and pulls his hair back, becoming sleeker and losing the appearance of Jesus.

Even after his apparent loss of faith (and again, his life is not depicted glowingly - it looks more like a sort of death-in-life under a horrifying dictatorship), he appears to consent to a final sacrament of confession for the reappearing figure of Kichijiro, reflecting his willingness to forgive. The final scene shows a continuing faith for even a broken man.

The film also shows the difficulty in understanding the problem of suffering, particularly when it happens to others. Fr. Rodrigo actively seeks martyrdom, but instead is forced to witness it happening to those he loves. For anyone who has ever suffered more while watching their family or friends suffer, and wished that God would instead allow it to happen to us as Christ accepted our sins and suffered for us, this portion of the film is heart-rending.

Again, it is a think piece, not an action movie, and I would recommend it. Go see it with another Catholic and go out and have some cake and pie afterwards and talk about it.

You describe it so accurately.

 

[dixieagle]

As I am quite sensitive to violence, I don’t imagine I’ll be seeing this. However, if it’s OK with the Vatican, it’s OK by me.

I do think that sometimes folks shy away from very nuanced, complicated, books and films that shake you up and cause you to think. From all the reviews I’ve read, this is certainly a film that makes you think, examine your faith and consider disturbing questions.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I just saw it, and am sorting out my thoughts on it.

Is it possible to edit the title to include the warning that this thread will include Spoilers for those who have yet to see the film?

While this post is still in a Spoiler-Free Zone, let me say that solely from a cinematic standpoint, I think it is the best thing Scorsese has ever done. The imagery is amazing. The performances by both the English-speaking and Japanese cast are excellent.

I’d also say for those thinking about seeing the film, it is engrossing but not a “feel good” movie. The hero does not triumph and outwit his enemies. In many ways, it is pretty depressing.

The tortures the Japanese government visited on Christians and missionaries (both Jesuit and Franciscan) are depicted, but to his credit, he does not dwell on the torture, in the way that Mel Gibson might have chosen to do. (Scorsese dedicates the film at the end to the Japanese Christians and Missionaries). The true torture of Fr. Rodrigo is being forced to witness the torture of others, with the price of their lives being his apostasy. This is Fr. Rodrigo’s central conundrum: what is the path to the imitation of Christ? Does he deny his own soul to save his friends from further torture and humiliation? Its hard to say “what would Jesus do?” in this case, and he has to make some hard choices.

What the film is, is an extended (it’s almost 3 hours long) meditation on two central mysteries of the Catholic faith: Faith and Forgiveness.

The need for Salvation is something that is a recurring theme in most of Scorsese’s great films, this one is more overt than most.

I don’t think that it any way glorifies apostasy (quite the opposite - it’s shown as horrible and soul-destroying), or shows a relativistic view of religions. Buddhism is not shown in a positive light, which is unusual in a Hollywood film.

The Japanese Christians are shown throughout as very human but also very praiseworthy. The priests are also humans rather than plaster saints, but both Garfield and Driver’s characters act out of the best motivations.

I recommend it highly.

SPOILERS NOW FOLLOW:

I think the film shows both the difficulties in faith when God appears to be silent, and the central need to believe in the possibilities of forgiveness, for ourselves and others, which may be the way we “hear” the voice of God even when He appears to be silent.

It’s interesting that we see the two priests administer Mass once during the film, and we see a Baptism, but the sacrament we see again and again is Confession. We see Kichijiro as failing again and again and repeatedly betraying the priests, yet returning each time to ask for the sacrament of Reconciliation. And again and again, we see Fr. Rodrigo forgive him through the sacrament, both personally and *in persona Christi. *

Liam Neeson does a great job of portraying a man who is a husk of his former self (again, I don’t see in any way that his role is glorified - it’s like listening to the Tempter himself). Garfield is also great as a priest who is attempting to emulate the life of Christ, and as he moves closer and closer to his own personal Gethsemane, his hair and beard grows longer and he looks more and more like the popular conception of Jesus. After he fails (and when he does in fact, hear the voice of Christ) - and you can hear the sound of a cock crowing thrice in the background, if you listen closely - and becomes a thrall of the Inquisitor (another great performance), he shaves his beard and pulls his hair back, becoming sleeker and losing the appearance of Jesus.

Even after his apparent loss of faith (and again, his life is not depicted glowingly - it looks more like a sort of death-in-life under a horrifying dictatorship), he appears to consent to a final sacrament of confession for the reappearing figure of Kichijiro, reflecting his willingness to forgive. The final scene shows a continuing faith for even a broken man.

The film also shows the difficulty in understanding the problem of suffering, particularly when it happens to others. Fr. Rodrigo actively seeks martyrdom, but instead is forced to witness it happening to those he loves. For anyone who has ever suffered more while watching their family or friends suffer, and wished that God would instead allow it to happen to us as Christ accepted our sins and suffered for us, this portion of the film is heart-rending.

Again, it is a think piece, not an action movie, and I would recommend it. Go see it with another Catholic and go out and have some cake and pie afterwards and talk about it.

very well said. I share your thoughts. I might add, the character who seeks confession over and over points out that we must remember this is 17th century Japan.
There were no RCIA classes. They had been without a priest for sometime. This is not modern day Catholicism in a country where there is religious freedom. These were Catholic Christians living in fear and who had seen family members and members of their community killed for their faith.

 

[Robyn_p]

So does the end leave a sense of hope or despair? That seems to be the main issue. I have not seen this movie but I am wanting to, as I know the Pope also saw it.

But, we watch all kinds of things that are not edifying, which I try to avoid. The real question is what does God show you when you watch this?

Do you think it is worthy of our time?

I would say yes, the end offers some hope. Rodriguez is defeated but he’s not completely broken.

It’s an intense and exhausting film. But good. So many moments had me in tears, and I’m not usually one to cry in a theater.

 

[rose_kelly]

For those who’ve seen the film, you may find this interesting.

It’s a reflection from Father James Marin who was a consultant on the film.

SPOILER ALERT.

Understanding “Silence”.
americamagazine.org/issue/understanding-silence

 

[Arizona_Mike]

For those who’ve seen the film, you may find this interesting.

It’s a reflection from Father James Marin who was a consultant on the film.

SPOILER ALERT.

Understanding “Silence”.
americamagazine.org/issue/understanding-silence

Thanks for posting that link, Rose - that was an interesting read.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Another article from America on Andrew Garfield’s experience of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola: americamagazine.org/issue/grace-enough

 

[7_Sorrows]

For those who’ve seen the film, you may find this interesting.

It’s a reflection from Father James Marin who was a consultant on the film.

SPOILER ALERT.

Understanding “Silence”.
americamagazine.org/issue/understanding-silence

That was a very good explanation by Father James Martin of how to understand this movie. That is pretty much how I comprehended the movie. Thanks for sharing this.

 

[Mammoths]

I was very excited to see this movie. I’ve never read (or even heard of) the book but the trailer looked interesting and was thrilled that a big time Oscar bait director like Martin Scorsese was making a movie about the Japanese martyrs.

After having watched the film however I’m very disappointed. Rather than a movie about the courageous martyrs dying for the faith, it was a movie about a man somewhat losing his faith and coming to grips with the choice of apostasy.

The movie to me seems to promote a sense of relativism, a need to privatize your faith, the idea that missionary work is immoral and that this life is valued above the next. Am I overlooking something in this movie? Are there any redeeming qualities that shows the truth of catholic morality?

I saw the movie too. I was disappointed in the priests who apostesized. I recognize that the story was never a doctrinally pure work. As far as any glimmer of goodness. I will say that the approach of the inquisitor to persecution was extremely realistic and the psychological games being played are the sort Christian’s face today around the world. The priests apostesized when he lost sight of The worthiness of Christ. If all the world perished it would not outweigh the devotion He deserves. We also see a type of peter in the movie who unlike the priest, denies Christ three times but gives his life for his savior in the end. Perhaps the worldly perspectives of Hollywood injected into the movie are the more jarring because it is so vicious in plot. I would challenge some whether they have the same disgust over movies like how how to train your dragon, avatar, Star Wars that have the same filthy doctrine under a facade of beauty.

 

[tomarin]

I would challenge some whether they have the same disgust over movies like how how to train your dragon, avatar, Star Wars that have the same filthy doctrine under a facade of beauty.

Can you expand on this? What is the ‘same filthy doctrine’ that you see in these other movies? I’ve never associated them with anything particularly objectionable.

 

[Mammoths]

I was very excited to see this movie. I’ve never read (or even heard of) the book but the trailer looked interesting and was thrilled that a big time Oscar bait director like Martin Scorsese was making a movie about the Japanese martyrs.

After having watched the film however I’m very disappointed. Rather than a movie about the courageous martyrs dying for the faith, it was a movie about a man somewhat losing his faith and coming to grips with the choice of apostasy.

The movie to me seems to promote a sense of relativism, a need to privatize your faith, the idea that missionary work is immoral and that this life is valued above the next. Am I overlooking something in this movie? Are there any redeeming qualities that shows the truth of catholic morality?

I saw the movie too. I was disappointed in the priests who apostesized. I recognize that the story was never a doctrinally pure work. As far as any glimmer of goodness. I will say that the approach of the inquisitor to persecution was extremely realistic and the psychological games being played are the sort Christian’s face today around the world. The priests apostesized when he lost sight of The worthiness of Christ. If all the world perished it would not outweigh the devotion He deserves. We also see a type of peter in the movie who unlike the priest, denies Christ three times but gives his life for his savior in the end. Perhaps the worldly perspectives of Hollywood injected into the movie are the more jarring because it is so vicious in plot. I would challenge some whether they have the same disgust over movies like how how to train your dragon, avatar, Star Wars that have the same filthy doctrine under a facade of beauty.

 

[Mammoths]

Can you expand on this? What is the ‘same filthy doctrine’ that you see in these other movies? I’ve never associated them with anything particularly objectionable.

Hiccup is a rebellious teenager who does not submit to his fathers authority. We relate to him because within the plot his father, the chief doesn’t seem to have a clue. This is reminiscent of the devil’s pitch to Eve. Did God really say? Well I know better. While the chief is not meant as a type of God, it seems there is a general attitude about authority that is validated by Hiccup’s success, which includes saving Burk. It would be refreshing to see the rebellious teen learn obedience by the things he suffered. There are bright spots too. In a sequel, stoic the Vast finds His estranged queen and immediately begins wooing her again as though fidelity and monogamy were superfluous to his nobility. Great example!

In avatar there is a strong insinuation of nature worship. The protagonist speaks to aiowa and refers to the way humans treated their own mother. As Christians we worship God not the earth he created. Once again there are also bright spots too where the movie mentiones the CEO’s greed for "“unobtainium”. We know as Christians that true wealth is found in Christ and not in the beggerly elements of the world.

In Star Wars, morality is rejected entirely and sin is replaced with the dark side of the force which is inexorably in balance with the light. Although the characters seem to perceive good and evil, that is not the nature of the force or its prophecies. This is reminiscent of panantheism, the idea that Creation is just a part of God or his dream. Nothing is truly Good or evil. We are all just parts of the Devine imagination. As Christians we know the creator transcends and rules over nature and judges Good from evil with righteousness.

Let me say, I enjoyed all these movies but I don’t use them to inform my faith but rather I habitually challenge the assumptions of our culture in pursuit of the wisdom from above which is first pure. I consciously reject the subversive doctrines of pop culture which all have one thing in common, the notion that some way other than Jesus will work for ‘me’ if I want. In the mart of movies targeted to people of faith I expect the pagan or backslid movie maker to be influenced by the world. So I like the movie silence. It is a well made movie with a thoughtful story about faithfulness, persecution, and forgiveness. I may not come to the same conclusions as the writer, but seeing those actors depict the priests’ struggle with the cost of their steadfastness made me appreciate all the more at what great cost the Gospel is preserved and delivered to the world.