Silence

Silence.

Other urls found in this thread:

americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2017/01/18/fr-james-martin-answers-5-common-questions-about-silence
youtube.com/watch?v=c6bIV1U85kY
youtube.com/watch?v=pCKwtUXyU1k
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Unironically best movie of 2016. No one will agree but I think this is Scorsese's best film.

*cicada noises and wind*

Existential.

UN IMMENSE SCORSESE

Masterpiece

How rude.

Human.

For you.

_____tial

_____ist

>the scene where Neeson finally appears mentally castrated wearing a stupid jap garb and condoning their behaviour
lmao those chinks who drowned had more balls

>that's the point

That doesn't bother me, but what does bother me is that all the posters for this film have Neeson looming over it massively and it turns out he's barely in the film.

shinoda did it better

why God gave permission to Andrew Garfield to apostasize but no to Adam Driver or the cristian japs?

God never did. Garfield just imagined it to justify him doing it. Both Nesson and Garfield find ways to justify their apostasy, even though both know deep down they fucked up and were wrong.

...

americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2017/01/18/fr-james-martin-answers-5-common-questions-about-silence

Reading this little interview and it's kind of disturbing to learn that it was common for critics to not understand the dilemma that Rodrigues faced. It means that critics in general have a very poor understanding of religion and that makes me sad. Another reason why it baffles me that anyone trusts them.

Good religious kino, but most people today don't have the theological knowledge to really get into it, and there's a big stigma on religion in a lot of Western countries/areas. Adding together religious themes and slow ponderous pacing and you've got a surefire way to make normies ignore your movie. Good on Scorsese for ignoring normie box office and making easily one of his best movies, if not the best.

WATCH IT, KIRISHTAN

It was. Sadly Christcucks misunderstood it for tragedy porn and antifa thinks this is Christian apologetic drama.

10/10

kinda dragged down by garfield imo, even though driver had way fewer scenes i felt he had way more impact on me
also dragged on too much in some of the later parts
besides that an excellent movie, 8/10

i went in with low expectations prepared to be bored to death but i never found a single moment boring. definitely one of my fav films of that year

Adam > Andrew

>link
I honestly thought that Andrew understood that it's not really a dilemma, faith is personal and he may not live preaching about god etc, but he could still believe in him and spare the suffering from the people. I never thought of it as literally "God spoke to him", more like his understanding by the end transcended the conventional one of the "organized" religion or something (I don't really know how to put it without sounding like a fedoraman when I am saying organized faith).

Generally, I really liked it, but I hated the editing. Some cuts felt like a "snap back" out of the films immersion. Anyone felt like this?

>Sadly Christcucks misunderstood it for tragedy porn
What?

I like Driver too but I find it strange that he would have had more of an impact of you. I felt that his character was not particularly fleshed out. It was Garfield that got all the characterization.

>faith is personal
Not for a jesuit priest. The purity of their soul is more important than all the tortures they had to suffer.
Renouncing Christ = go to hell, doesn't matter if you say "it was just a trick" later

My mum picks up the Irish Catholic monthly Messenger, there was a really good interview with the Jesuit who was advisor to Scorsese in it last year

I see, I see. I guess maybe people from different (Christian) cultures may have seen it with different perspectives and projected their own beliefs on Andrew's character...
Post it!
Nice trips btw

movies like this can be watched in decades from now and bring something new because of the perspective shift in the audiences, and therefore always bringing something new to the intelectual debate

movies like boxofficehits avengers superman starshits are trash for intelectual swamp and threads about those contain people with such qualities

First reply was meant for

Gomenasai, my name is Cristóvão-Sama.

I’m a 57 year old Portuguese ex-Kirishitan (Apostate for you gaijins).

i wish he would play qui gon jin again

>0 oscars
Why is this allowed?

The strong moments in Silence always found a way to disappoint me with some apparent faults and missing things I thought obviously would have to be in the movie
>The relationship between Driver and Garfield was largely underdeveloped, which really ruined the impact of Driver's death
>That asian dude who reappears alot was annoying; he just comes back and does the same thing over and over
>Garfield holding the cross in the coffin ruined everything about his character development; he was supposed to renounce his faith so having a cross is largely egoistic and furthermore exposes his faults
>Garfield is shown to think he's Jesus, but the movie never delves into it after that scene
>Garfield stepping on his faith to save the others is a parallell to God hanging on the cross for his people, and no matter how obvious this is, Garfield literally has to imagine God's voice telling him to do this, which further tells us just how shit his character development is
>Liam Neeson was only in the movie to foreshadow Garfield's future, which undermines the impact of his actions because someone's already experienced literally everything he has
>When Driver and Garfield was in the hut in the mountain we had some lost metaphoric potential to what enclosure feels like (nitpick but I found it disappointing)

and i dont even know if this is bait or not

It was good but the fact we got Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver as the leads instead of Daniel Day Lewis and Benicio del Toro will always frustrate me.

Do you not remember that they were going to execute a bunch of other people if they didn't apostasize?

It was better than Certain Women (probably Reichardt's best film and the 2nd best of 2016).

One of Scorsese's best, for sure.

watch it again, you don't seem to have understoof half of the things the movies wanted to convey.

>Neeson
nice
>Garfield
ugh alright... but the movie better be really good
>Driver
get fucked

>intro
>music starts
>title appears
>SILENCE
>everything is silent


MY FUCKING DICK

The font was just too modern looking for a historical film about Christianity in Japan.

That movie was shallow, every theme and plot points were treated very superficially (characters, historical setting, faith, the Japanese)

you now hear inquisitor inoue's muppets laugh

>movie about Portuguese missionaries in Japan getting tortured and killed
>IT'S JUST A SHOT AWAY starts playing
youtube.com/watch?v=c6bIV1U85kY

scorsese has no taste. no fucking taste. disgusting

How was every theme and plot point explored "superficially"?

How is "the Japanese" and "historical setting" a theme?

Don't fucking shitpost unless you have something constructive to say.

Buddhism was introduced as a foreign religion to Japan roughly 1000 years before this movie takes place. What was different then and why doesn't the movie refer to this analogue in the slightest? Is this a historically incompetent movie? Is Scorsese too influenced by his catholic roots to resolve this looming question?

That's the only thing that bothered me because it begs the question so loudly from the first time 'buddhism' is mentioned. Mokichi lies and says >we are buddhists
and the viewer thinks
>"oh buddhism, you mean the other world religion that spread to Japan through missionaries".

>america magazine in general
>father james martin in particular

Opinion discarded

>roughly 1000 years before this movie takes place
you just answered your own question, christcuck

stfu you spaz

Buddhism was easily blended with native religious traditions, Catholicism was an entirely new religion that isn't compatible with Buddhism or Shinto

Also it's not a relevant question

>your foreign religion isn't suitable for japan
>um well akshully buddhism is foreign too so that means that the circumstances are the same lmao

Doesn't add anything to the film my man

Silence.

Because in order for the Japanese to adopt Catholicism they would have to completely recant Shintoism and the belief that the emperor is descended from a literal God, rather than the monarch being God's representative on earth appointed by the pope as it is with Catholicism.

Just to add to this, if more Japs converted to Catholicism, it would result in further papal involvement of Japanese affairs, and eventually the entire Catholic European world would be interfering in Japan. They mention this in the movie.

Best to nip things like that in the bud before they destabilize your country

The message was not that this particular religion was unsuitable. I can't remember exactly what is said but amongs other things 'the swamp in which nothing grows', 'the japanese can't see anything beyond nature'. Would the japanese inquisitor be that clueless as to the history of his own country? In they end they mention that the japanese christians were left alone after the priests has apostatised, but it had become 'something strange', a japanese kind of christianity. Yet in the case of buddhism between China, India and Japan there are absolutely not the kind of abominable misunderstandings that Ferrari speaks of, that message strikes through. Are we to accept that the 'swampiness' of Japan came about in later years, even though the japanese ethnicity has formed during a timespan that completely dwarfs a mere millenium. I don't buy it.

...

Yeah, so it's the swamp in which Christianity in particular doesn't grow. And it's the particular 'mistress' that is Christianity, that is barren. The strong themes of Japan's general imperviousness are out of place.

That's still essentially saying that christianity or any form of abrahamic religion is unsuitable.

The case with Buddhism is that it involves denying nature (desire and natural impulses). This doesn't really conflict with the Japanese shogun system and the sovereignty of the emperor, while Christianity would require a total shakeup of the country.

For the emperor of Japan to convert to Christianity would require him to completely rescind all claims of Godhood

I'd say that's just a way of expressing the difficulty of converting pagans who speak a completely different language. A pagan sees the divine in celestial bodies and large geographical entities (the sun god, the moon god, the sea god, the mountain god). The trinity is hard to describe to them. Like it's going to be near impossible for an illiterate peasant to even comprehend.

Buddhism, on the other hand, is fairly straight forward.

Silence.

I thought it was fantastic, definitely one of Scorsese's best. However, I did find Neeson's lack of an accent to be very jarring. Either have everyone do one or nobody, thought it was a pretty poor directorial decision.

Ok, that's not the thing that bugs me. Rather the failure to handle this in the movie, while simultaneously referring to Japan as impervious in a general capacity.

I disagree with this clause though:
>The case with Buddhism is that it involves denying nature (desire and natural impulses). This doesn't really conflict with the Japanese shogun system and the sovereignty of the emperor

The case with Christianity is that it involves confession and this doesn't really conflict with....
You see how this is a strange way to make some sort of proof.

But they where not Pagan, they where buddhist. And can you see how chalking this up to the language barrier would seem banal? I don't say that you are wrong, I say that this is a central question and the movie brushes past it. Why Buddha but not Christ?

Was a Catholic.

This movie turned me to Tengrism.

How are the positive posts in this thread constructive?

They just say "it's great" and "dumbfucks won't get it"

Sorry, I don't have it any more, there might be an online article I haven't checked

youtube.com/watch?v=pCKwtUXyU1k
ur a loser

nowhere close to his best

worst film he has ever made.
Entry level religious shit that is so hamfisted and repetitive that you find yourself wondering how much you could cut from the film and lose out on literally nothing. Mic popping and sound distortion when adam driver was diving into the ocean. This movie just goes on and on and on with the same exact shit of footstamping, juniichiro et all. There was a good movie hidden in here somewhere but Scorsese def ain't capable of bringing it out. I don't even mind slow ponderous movies but there was nothing to ponder and past the first hr the only thing to break up the monotony is the dialogue from the inquisitor and his assistant.


Some of it was vurrry pretty tho.

2deep4u

Tell me why you think it's bad in more detail, that's my beef. The other guy in the thread who has an issue about the "swampiness" theme being weak is actually presenting points to back up what he thinks.

Well it's harder for Christianity to "meld" with japan into a kind of syncretism like Buddhism did, since Catholicism has a body of authority that strictly lays out the rules. Japan is impervious because the authorities and ruling classes deem christianity as a subversive influence. I think why whatshisname was saying this "swampiness" nonsense to Garfield - he was just trying to get him to quit.

The "swampiness" was just a cop out by the inquisitor when the real reason for Christianity failing to spread is the Japanese authorities.

However, that's not to say that he isn't being hypocritical by saying that christianity will never take root in Japan, but he probably has a point in saying that it's unfettered introduction will only sow chaos in the country. He could've expanded more by talking about how Buddhism caused war and discontent in the past, but I'm assuming Scorsese (or the author) didn't bother because they weren't very familiar with Japanese history and felt Catholicism was more important that talking about religious conflict in Japan 1000 years ago, and how that relates to moral relativism or whatever

>1000 years
>what changed

eye dUno men

>let's compare a loose Eastern philosophical "religion" that is more of a philosophy and highly syncretic to an Abrahamic doctrine that requires absolute dogmatic and hierarchical adherence

They're Buddhist in philosophy, but they're also pagan.

>let's compare a loose Eastern philosophical "religion" that is more of a philosophy

Buddhism in a can.

Christians weren't kicked out of Japan because the Japanese 'already had Buddha', they were kicked out because of a combination of Japanese xenophobia and exceptionalism mixed with the very real goal of the Missionaries to get a political foothold in Japan.

Its a Christian torture porn episode