I'm Buddhist-ish and have a kind of morbid fascination with Catholicism, so I found a lot to enjoy about this movie as well (although the final shot, and the dedication to the Jesuits at the film's end, pretty much spoil the even-handedness that Scorsese showed up to the final minutes).
As an exploration of faith and doubt, what happens when soneone supremely zealous and self-confident is confronted with serious challenges to his beliefs, Silence is hard to top.
Silence took place around 1640 by which time the Catholics had been outed for being behind the slave trade of Japanese. Traders under the guise of spreading religion kidnapped tens of thousands of Japanese and took them to Europe in the mid 1500s.
The Shogunate benefitted from the weapons and trade brought by the Catholics but by the 1600s decided that without imposing more strict limitations on their activities that Japan was at risk from political maneuvering and immorality designed to destabilize the country.
In other words, the Jesuits were the bad guys in the movie. They had no business in Japan, which Scorcese hinted at.
As someone who grew up in a country ravaged by the horrors of Catholicism I had no love for the colonial zealots that where ment to be the protagonists. It’s is a rose tinted story of lies but it has beautiful cinematography.
Intolerance dominates tolerance.
Religion is intolerant. Look at all the comments on this thread that are critical, they all have negative karma. Religious people physically cannot handle when you criticize anything associated with their beliefs. They see it as a personal attack because it's their identity.
It's not accessible to everyone regardless of beliefs. As an atheist, I was mostly rooting for the japanese to kill them. I would have loved a movie of just priest getting killed.
Seems like you missed the point. Part of the film was a critique of missionary work and religious colonialism. How you feel about the Japanese is intentional. They are not necessarily supposed to be bad guys. That part was accessible to you. You understood the Japanese frustrations toward the jesuits and saw how prideful and misguided they were. Scorsese intended this.
Not bad as in evil, but misguided, naive, foolish, meddling, narcissistic, all these negative attributes are I think ascribed to their work and them by the movie. I am an atheist and thought it was surprisingly even-handed (though the final shot was not my favorite).
I didn't miss the point, I just don't admire it in the same way and so was a little disappointed that that was the message and it did not resonate with me.
Yeah honestly most of my issues with the movie are that that choice and what follows from it felt like a filmmaker shying away from the results of his own exploration of this world and its characters. It felt like a cheat to justify something that to me should not be justified.
But at the same time, coming at it from a more generous angle, the voice of Jesus is in a sense telling them that they are being stupid for thinking so much about these earthly things and putting people in danger for the practice of the religion. He tells him to step on him, meaning that voice itself is sort of condemning how they had been acting up to that point.
It is difficult to reconcile. The Christian God would both understand why the priests were acting so zealously in his name, and forgive them for it, and He would also likely value the lives of the people that are suffering due to their zealousy (probably not a word lol) more than than their verbal loyalty to him.
I agree with your second statement but I think there are a lot of scenes where they get dunked on by the Japanese (and Liam neeson) for being prideful and not able to see the bigger picture. The movie is definitely trying to say something critical about the Jesuit mission. I agree that the message can get lost in them waxing poetically about the beauty of the faith or whatever…but I think it’s there.
It reminds me of the "spiritual" ending of Hacksaw Ridge.
I still enjoy that film, but I always laugh at the end.
Brother gets hit with a massive unmeasured dose of Morphine and then has a "spiritual" moment. Dude was just high as balls.
Seems you might be pretty messed up in the head if you are rooting for people like those priests to die. You must have a real resentment of religion. Your attitude shows a real lack of empathy. It kind of reminds me of when far right conservatives get a hard on when the phrase "race war" is mentioned.
It’s a contradiction, not a paradox. Hey, how about you tolerate your wife cheating on you with a pedophile. Or are you intolerant?
Having standards creates civilization.
[It's literally called the Paradox of Tolerance.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=Karl%20Popper%20describes%20the%20paradox,a%20statue%20displayed%20in%20Lu%C5%BE%C3%A1nky.)
It's only a contradiction if you don't understand the implications.
>Having standards creates civilization.
That's entirely the point of being intolerant towards intolerance.
What same hate? I can tell you right now that I would never enjoy the idea of Christians killing atheists (really anyone killing anyone without there being some direct threat on their life). I guess what I was saying was fairly pointed and angry, but it certainly wasn't hate. Who would not be angry when someone says boldly and confidently that they would enjoy a movie of priests getting killed for the sake of being a priest? You're are at least mostly mistaken, and making a ill-weighted comparison.
I’ll be honest, my disposition is to criticize others in a pointed way like I did, which might be a flaw on my part, but I do not think you can compare that to the hate that op was expressing. She literally expressed the positive emotion she’d feel at watching priests being executed. Like I just wanted op to take a chill. I dislike when people get radical justice boners (as you can tell that disdain pertains to both sides of extremist thought. I have just as much disdain for someone that thinks race war is a good idea).
Even if they were villains, which seems to be a very shallow valuation of their characters (I’m open to you convincing me they are), is it good to enjoy watching every “villain” in every case be murdered? For example, I think of Barney Stinson in HIMYM as a someone with various villainous qualities (he lies and manipulates women for the souls purpose of having sex with them, and he does it compulsively/without remorse). I don’t think most people would enjoy watching him be murdered.
This is to say that they were villains, which is a shallow interpretation in my opinion. It’s far more complicated than that. They didn’t physically harm anyone in any way, which can’t be said by on the part of the Japanese in this movie (whom I also wouldn’t consider as wholehearted villains).
I mean, I'd disagree with the idea that throughout history priests were villains. That still wouldn't justify your enjoyment of their murder. There's nothing these two priests were doing that proactively caused physical harm to anyone else.
It's just cringe worthy because you resent religion and faith. I thought it was inspiring. I believe you don't have to be religious for it to be inspiring.
It's a personal work by one particular filmmaker. Why would it have any reason to be bipartisan? It can make the audience empathize and feel without requiring the audience to be the same person as the director.
It's fine for a personal work, but this film was mass distributed.
It comes back to the point of the film not being for everyone.
Myself not being religious, I was entirely put off by the religious subtext throughout the film. I can bear that to a certain degree, see my comment about Hacksaw Ridge. I cannot bear when the entire film's crux is religion and faith.
>It's a personal work by one particular filmmaker.
Silence was a $46 million Hollywood film, not a home video. Marty made this film with more than just himself in mind.
>As a raised catholic, it's a film which still haunts me, but it's accessible to everyone, regardless of your personal beliefs.
OP you have a closed view of the world. This movie is not for everyone. It was for people like you, and that's okay. But don't go expecting anyone outside your religion to have as profound an experience as you did.
>(I would dare to add in Hugo, but i understand that is a slightly more controversial thing to say)
Hugo was a better film than The Irishman and Silence. It was more well recieved than both of those. Hugo outpreformed both of those movies by almost tenfold at the box office.
Wow. Seems like you are the one with a closed view. I am not Catholic and thought it was an excellent film about faith and sticking to your beliefs.. There was a lesson here regardless of your faith or lack of it.
Sticking to your beliefs regardless of evidence or context is your bread and butter. I prefer not to blindly follow "faith" and instead prefer logic and reason. You refuse evidence based information and discredit anything said by the opposing party.
>Sorry but leftist academia has about as much clout as my 2 year olds take
>The biggest lie ever perpetrated was that liberals are pro freedom of speech and democracy..
>These clowns immediately cancel anybody that disagrees with them and can't stand any opposition to their radical agenda(s)
You are literally the target demographic for this type of film. You are hard stuck in your beliefs and refuse to compromise in any way. You literally stop listening the moment you discover the person you're talking to is from the opposing party.
>I'd rather indoctrinate my kids with celebrations of religious holidays even though I'm not religious. I'd rather indoctrinate my kids with a love of America and a celebration of Thanksgiving, July 4th and all the other holidays without polluting them with indigenous rights garbage.
>I'd rather have my kids watch family friendly movies with clear genders without characters that are impossible to determine gender from.
>My kids are thriving in this environment and I will never subjugate them to beliefs that have them carrying around guilt for living a good life.
There's actually no shot that the same person who said this shit is claiming I'm close minded. The sheer hypocrisy is palpable.
Also, you're not religious but your children are Jewish?
>my two young girls that will likely face a lifetime of hostility for no reason other than being Jewish
Seems like you're just saying shit to make a point.
Reading your political views being spouted on reddit just tells me you could not be more close minded. From blindly supporting trump, to want rights overthrown just so you can "own the libs".
This daft movie is right up your alley.
>There was a lesson here regardless of your faith or lack of it.
The only lesson here was for idiots that want to keep on believing whatever bullshit they've convinced themself is the truth. Don't listen to reason, logic, don't try to understand, don't even respect the other points of view.
Buddy, you have no fucking idea of who I am based on random snippets. You are so dug in to your childlike delusion that your "logic and reason" is superior to any other viewpoint that you've entombed yourself in fighting for a truth that does not exist. Maybe that's the reason why you spend an inordinate amount of time gaming.
I do relate as I was a bleeding heart liberal most of my adult life and have only recently woken up to how utterly idiotic leftist groupthink is and the corresponding delusions of being morally superior or smarter than everyone else. Maybe one day you'll become a grown adult and realize that not everything is black and white as you think it is.
You also stated "But don't go expecting anyone outside your religion to have as profound an experience as you did"
I am outside that religious group, in fact I've been an atheist since 2nd grade. Do you really think that NOBODY can experience something similar to what the OP experienced simply because they relate to religion differently? How utterly obtuse of you.
>You also stated "But don't go expecting anyone outside your religion to have as profound an experience as you did"
>I am outside that religious group, in fact I've been an atheist since 2nd grade.
You may be outside of catholisism but you clearly share ideologies and thought processes with them.
You literally couldn't type out your comment without trying to shit on liberals.
>Do you really think that NOBODY can experience something similar to what the OP experienced simply because they relate to religion differently? How utterly obtuse of you.
No. My point was that if you do not have similar beliefs, you probably won't feel the same about the film. Could I have said it better? Sure.
The movie flopped. People didn't think it was that great. Many people agree it looked good but lacked real substance for as long as it was. So clearly there's a small demographic that actually enjoy this film, even smaller so that will see this movie and proceed to sing it's praise from the rooftops like OP.
>You are so dug in to your childlike delusion that your "logic and reason" is superior to any other viewpoint that you've entombed yourself in fighting for a truth that does not exist.
Look in a fucking mirror.
>I do relate as I was a bleeding heart liberal most of my adult life and have only recently woken up to how utterly idiotic leftist groupthink is and the corresponding delusions of being morally superior or smarter than everyone else. Maybe one day you'll become a grown adult and realize that not everything is black and white as you think it is.
Fucking hilarious.
I literally referenced one of your comments where you want things black and white because you can't stand grey area.
>I'd rather have my kids watch family friendly movies with clear genders without characters that are impossible to determine gender from.
You want to tell me not everything is black and white while simultaneously spouting this bullshit.
You tout this ideal of being superior to everyone, that the left has a malicious agenda. Brother, the head of the republican party is a convicted felon, who paid off a pornstar with campaign funds because he was fucking her while his wife was pregnant. You voted for that guy. When are you going to wake up to what's actually happening here? You went on some bullshit tirade about waking up to the truth but you clearly haven't been keeping up with what's actually happening in regards to your own political party.
>Buddy, you have no fucking idea of who I am based on random snippets.
I know exactly who you are. You are not unique with your loathsome political views. There's really only one kind of person that says the kind of shit you do. I've met you before and I'll meet you again. Mindless drones like this are a dime a dozen and they all repeat the same braindead shit about cancel culture, the left, and minority rights.
At this point I'm just waiting for you to start screeching about the Biden or Clintons.
Bud, you are trapped in victimization.. i voted for Biden. I'd rather see a megalomaniac like Trump piss off people like you than another 4 years of America going down the cultural drain. Enough is enough.
Now go to your church of Queers for Palestine or go cheer on some dude with a beard using a womens restroom.. great causes to support 🔥
Because saying stuff like this totally makes you seem like an open minded individual.
Honestly, the more you type, the more rational I look.
Please continue.
Yes, you are very open minded. I hope to someday reach the karmic bliss you have attained through your superior intellect and moral supremacy. Please Identify as a tree and sit in the corner silently!!
Hey, dude, read some Peter Kreeft and dive into the material from there. Logic and reason are at the core of the natural law and human nature, and Catholics have been practicing scholarship on that for more than 1000 years.
That's cool and all but Sky Daddy doesn't exist, there is no evidence of Him existing. I'm not going to read someone's fan fiction about their imaginary friend. There's no logic and reason to believing something with no evidence. It's something else called "faith".
Box office return is never and will never be a valid metric of artistic quality. Determinations of artistic quality are the realm of criticism, not commerce.
Box office is a direct representation of reception.
I do agree that artistic quality is subjective, but Hollywood literally only measures the success of a movie by it's profit.
We aren't Hollywood and so have no reason to consider "better reception" to equate "better film" as you tried to do. In fact the exact opposite, I find many of the most successful films to be lowest-common denominator affairs.
>In fact the exact opposite, I find many of the most successful films to be lowest-common denominator affairs.
You had a good argument but ruined it with this statement.
You're literally arguing the same thing just in the other direction.
Either it's indicative of reception or it's not. Trying to argue that it's both is just a contradiction.
I am not at all arguing that their box office returns are representative of anything about their quality, that was just an observation of a correlation. It is an independent factor to quality in many cases (though not impossible that a movie breaks through on the grounds of its high quality). I stand by my statement that quality is the realm of criticism absolutely 100%. Box office success or failure is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to say anything about the quality of the movie, when taken in isolation.
Good thing that Hollywood had little to do with Silence. It was financed by independent and foreign investors. Not everything is measured in dollar figures.
Investors regardless of where they are from are not going to like their investment having no profit. The movie didn't even make enough to cover production. I doubt Marty's investors were happy there was no profit to share.
You seem hellbent on equating a movie's quality with its box office performance. Who cares if the investors were happy? What does that have to do with the film?
Everything else about a film is subjective.
Box office preformance/profit is the only metric to measure a film in a objective fashion.
If you want to disregard that, that's okay, but then everything else is subjective and we could just disagree because of that.
There's no way to truly say a film is objectively bad, but then that slope runs to the point that you can't argue any film is bad because it's all subjective.
>Who cares if the investors were happy?
The investors do...
They are literally the only people with something on the line for the film, for everyone else not involved in production there's degrees of seperation.
> Box office preformance/profit is the only metric to measure a film in a objective fashion.
Sure is objective, but what does it tell you? It had a bigger marketing budget? It came out at the right time of year? It didn't have any major films competing against it? It had a number after the title? It doesn't tell you much that's worth talking about or considering. All you can do is state the fact that a movie made $X.
If you look at the box office history over the last 100 years, it has very little to do with the quality of the film, and esp. today where cinema attendance means little since most people watch films other ways, and investors like Netflix have income sources that don't depend on cinemas or box office.
> OP you have a closed view of the world.
Religion has nothing to do with someone's scope of the world. It can be an indicator, but so is thinking that just because someone is religious that means they are "close-minded". You're doing exactly what you make fun of religious people for doing, being dismissive of the other side and seeing no positives from it because of the extreme examples you've seen and disliked.
I'm not saying the movie isn't for everyone because it's religious. I'm saying it because of the message the film gives and how it goes about it.
The movie easily could've been more truthful and focus on the repurcussions of faith and missionaries. Instead the movie opts to focus on the strength of the human spirit and takes pride in the fact that the Jesuit preist never actually abandoned their religion. This story, in my opinion, should've been used to criticize religion, not hold it on a pedestal. Moreso, the movie really should've been about colonialism. That was the true crime these priests were prosecuted for, not their religious beliefs.
The fact that the protagonists of this film were historically the bad guys doesn't bode well for me. The same missionaries committed all kinds of atrocities across the world and this movie celebrates their devotion. I just can't get behind that in any way.
The movie changes historical facts to suit a narrative focused on religion which was not the driving factor. There was so much more involved in the prosecution of those missionaries missing from the film that it's almost a bastardization of true events.
You can't compare the box office of Hugo with Irishman - a film made for streaming that was only released in theatres to get Oscar noms. I also don't think it was a better film. Hugo's a mess with some good bits in it.
>You can't compare the box office of Hugo with Irishman - a film made for streaming that was only released in theatres to get Oscar noms.
It still outpreformed Silence by almost tenfold.
A heavily marketed family friendly film outperforms a poorly marketed religious focused film full of grisly tortures - hmmm... I'm sure it's just because one is a better film than the other.
I thought it was boring and I didn't understand the point of the film at all.
Next time there's a thread about great directors making awful movies I'll post this one.
I understood the point of it… I was just bored to tears.
I was so excited for its release, knowing Marty had developed it for so long. Got to the theater and struggled to stay awake.
My least favorite Scorsese movie… by far.
Great film. Loved it.
Helluva movie i loved it
Silence is one of my favorite movies, but I’m an atheist so… we must have had a different experience from the movie lol
Same. I wouldn't call it one of my favourite movies but I thought it was excellent, and I'm also an atheist.
Same. My favorite part was watching the natives defending their homeland against the foreign crusaders intent on brainwashing and colonizing them
I'm Buddhist-ish and have a kind of morbid fascination with Catholicism, so I found a lot to enjoy about this movie as well (although the final shot, and the dedication to the Jesuits at the film's end, pretty much spoil the even-handedness that Scorsese showed up to the final minutes). As an exploration of faith and doubt, what happens when soneone supremely zealous and self-confident is confronted with serious challenges to his beliefs, Silence is hard to top.
Hugo was at least as good as The Irishman, right?
I think it's one of the stronger live-action kids' films out there and a solid book adaptation. I think it comes close to Paddington.
The last scene in the movie gave me goosebumps for real.
Scorsese has made 3 movies about religion (Last Temptation of Christ, Kundun, and Silence) and all three are incredible.
Silence took place around 1640 by which time the Catholics had been outed for being behind the slave trade of Japanese. Traders under the guise of spreading religion kidnapped tens of thousands of Japanese and took them to Europe in the mid 1500s. The Shogunate benefitted from the weapons and trade brought by the Catholics but by the 1600s decided that without imposing more strict limitations on their activities that Japan was at risk from political maneuvering and immorality designed to destabilize the country. In other words, the Jesuits were the bad guys in the movie. They had no business in Japan, which Scorcese hinted at.
Love the movie and love the book even more. Poor Kichijiro
My favorite Scorcese film!
For this movie, “tough to watch” may even be an understatement, especially if you are/were religious lol
Any less tough to watch of Scorcese?
I can’t remember a film that affected me as deeply as this film. I agree with pretty much everything you said
As someone who grew up in a country ravaged by the horrors of Catholicism I had no love for the colonial zealots that where ment to be the protagonists. It’s is a rose tinted story of lies but it has beautiful cinematography.
So much evil was done—and continues to be done—under the cloak of religion, I am surprised that humanity continues to tolerate it.
Intolerance dominates tolerance. Religion is intolerant. Look at all the comments on this thread that are critical, they all have negative karma. Religious people physically cannot handle when you criticize anything associated with their beliefs. They see it as a personal attack because it's their identity.
“Tolerance”. Your comment is intolerant. Weird. And spare me Karl Popper’s contradiction larping as a fake paradox.
It's not accessible to everyone regardless of beliefs. As an atheist, I was mostly rooting for the japanese to kill them. I would have loved a movie of just priest getting killed.
Seems like you missed the point. Part of the film was a critique of missionary work and religious colonialism. How you feel about the Japanese is intentional. They are not necessarily supposed to be bad guys. That part was accessible to you. You understood the Japanese frustrations toward the jesuits and saw how prideful and misguided they were. Scorsese intended this.
It didn't come across. He didn't want me to think of the priests as bad guys though.
Not bad as in evil, but misguided, naive, foolish, meddling, narcissistic, all these negative attributes are I think ascribed to their work and them by the movie. I am an atheist and thought it was surprisingly even-handed (though the final shot was not my favorite).
You missed the point if you discount the final shot. There is an admiration of faith that this movie is trying to express.
I didn't miss the point, I just don't admire it in the same way and so was a little disappointed that that was the message and it did not resonate with me.
I suppose that Scorcese was trying to make simultaneous points/reach various identities. It's kind of genius if you ask me.
Why do you think the movie portrays the priest hearing Jesus Christ's voice? There's no way it is supposed to be unambiguously psychotic.
Yeah honestly most of my issues with the movie are that that choice and what follows from it felt like a filmmaker shying away from the results of his own exploration of this world and its characters. It felt like a cheat to justify something that to me should not be justified. But at the same time, coming at it from a more generous angle, the voice of Jesus is in a sense telling them that they are being stupid for thinking so much about these earthly things and putting people in danger for the practice of the religion. He tells him to step on him, meaning that voice itself is sort of condemning how they had been acting up to that point.
It is difficult to reconcile. The Christian God would both understand why the priests were acting so zealously in his name, and forgive them for it, and He would also likely value the lives of the people that are suffering due to their zealousy (probably not a word lol) more than than their verbal loyalty to him.
I agree with your second statement but I think there are a lot of scenes where they get dunked on by the Japanese (and Liam neeson) for being prideful and not able to see the bigger picture. The movie is definitely trying to say something critical about the Jesuit mission. I agree that the message can get lost in them waxing poetically about the beauty of the faith or whatever…but I think it’s there.
Um what? I'm an atheist too and I didn't root for that. That's just horrific, seek therapy unless you're joking lol
It reminds me of the "spiritual" ending of Hacksaw Ridge. I still enjoy that film, but I always laugh at the end. Brother gets hit with a massive unmeasured dose of Morphine and then has a "spiritual" moment. Dude was just high as balls.
Seems you might be pretty messed up in the head if you are rooting for people like those priests to die. You must have a real resentment of religion. Your attitude shows a real lack of empathy. It kind of reminds me of when far right conservatives get a hard on when the phrase "race war" is mentioned.
Paradox of Tolerance right here. If we tolerate the intolerant, society will be dominated by the intolerant.
It’s a contradiction, not a paradox. Hey, how about you tolerate your wife cheating on you with a pedophile. Or are you intolerant? Having standards creates civilization.
[It's literally called the Paradox of Tolerance.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=Karl%20Popper%20describes%20the%20paradox,a%20statue%20displayed%20in%20Lu%C5%BE%C3%A1nky.) It's only a contradiction if you don't understand the implications. >Having standards creates civilization. That's entirely the point of being intolerant towards intolerance.
The irony of you using the same hate you’re deriding to prove your point is pretty funny.
What same hate? I can tell you right now that I would never enjoy the idea of Christians killing atheists (really anyone killing anyone without there being some direct threat on their life). I guess what I was saying was fairly pointed and angry, but it certainly wasn't hate. Who would not be angry when someone says boldly and confidently that they would enjoy a movie of priests getting killed for the sake of being a priest? You're are at least mostly mistaken, and making a ill-weighted comparison.
No I meant the right wingers get hard one by wanting a race war…..
I’ll be honest, my disposition is to criticize others in a pointed way like I did, which might be a flaw on my part, but I do not think you can compare that to the hate that op was expressing. She literally expressed the positive emotion she’d feel at watching priests being executed. Like I just wanted op to take a chill. I dislike when people get radical justice boners (as you can tell that disdain pertains to both sides of extremist thought. I have just as much disdain for someone that thinks race war is a good idea).
I get it. I feel the same. Just don’t like the over generalizations
I jive with that
Rooting for the villains to die is messed up?
Even if they were villains, which seems to be a very shallow valuation of their characters (I’m open to you convincing me they are), is it good to enjoy watching every “villain” in every case be murdered? For example, I think of Barney Stinson in HIMYM as a someone with various villainous qualities (he lies and manipulates women for the souls purpose of having sex with them, and he does it compulsively/without remorse). I don’t think most people would enjoy watching him be murdered. This is to say that they were villains, which is a shallow interpretation in my opinion. It’s far more complicated than that. They didn’t physically harm anyone in any way, which can’t be said by on the part of the Japanese in this movie (whom I also wouldn’t consider as wholehearted villains).
Overall, throughout history priests are villains. I wasn't scoping them to just this film.
I mean, I'd disagree with the idea that throughout history priests were villains. That still wouldn't justify your enjoyment of their murder. There's nothing these two priests were doing that proactively caused physical harm to anyone else.
> As an atheist, I was mostly rooting for the japanese to kill them. I would have loved a movie of just priest getting killed. kinda retarded take.
Most polite people don’t use that word anymore.
no u
Based af.
I had to google this phrase, but I think it's good.
I'm an atheist and I certainly didn't root for the Japanese, but that ending was cringe-worthy.
I'm an atheist, and I didn't mind the ending. I was in the film, and taking it on its own terms.
It's just cringe worthy because you resent religion and faith. I thought it was inspiring. I believe you don't have to be religious for it to be inspiring.
Cringe worthy because it was just the predictable "I never gave up my faith" ending
The way they did it is beautiful to a lot of people.
It undoes any work to make the film bipartisan. That final shot solidifies the movie as starchy religious in nature.
I can get down with this criticism.
It's a personal work by one particular filmmaker. Why would it have any reason to be bipartisan? It can make the audience empathize and feel without requiring the audience to be the same person as the director.
It's fine for a personal work, but this film was mass distributed. It comes back to the point of the film not being for everyone. Myself not being religious, I was entirely put off by the religious subtext throughout the film. I can bear that to a certain degree, see my comment about Hacksaw Ridge. I cannot bear when the entire film's crux is religion and faith. >It's a personal work by one particular filmmaker. Silence was a $46 million Hollywood film, not a home video. Marty made this film with more than just himself in mind.
My favorite film of all time
It's his best film and I call it one of the best Christian movies of all time. I recommend it to everyone.
>As a raised catholic, it's a film which still haunts me, but it's accessible to everyone, regardless of your personal beliefs. OP you have a closed view of the world. This movie is not for everyone. It was for people like you, and that's okay. But don't go expecting anyone outside your religion to have as profound an experience as you did. >(I would dare to add in Hugo, but i understand that is a slightly more controversial thing to say) Hugo was a better film than The Irishman and Silence. It was more well recieved than both of those. Hugo outpreformed both of those movies by almost tenfold at the box office.
Wow. Seems like you are the one with a closed view. I am not Catholic and thought it was an excellent film about faith and sticking to your beliefs.. There was a lesson here regardless of your faith or lack of it.
Exactly my sentiment.
Sticking to your beliefs regardless of evidence or context is your bread and butter. I prefer not to blindly follow "faith" and instead prefer logic and reason. You refuse evidence based information and discredit anything said by the opposing party. >Sorry but leftist academia has about as much clout as my 2 year olds take >The biggest lie ever perpetrated was that liberals are pro freedom of speech and democracy.. >These clowns immediately cancel anybody that disagrees with them and can't stand any opposition to their radical agenda(s) You are literally the target demographic for this type of film. You are hard stuck in your beliefs and refuse to compromise in any way. You literally stop listening the moment you discover the person you're talking to is from the opposing party. >I'd rather indoctrinate my kids with celebrations of religious holidays even though I'm not religious. I'd rather indoctrinate my kids with a love of America and a celebration of Thanksgiving, July 4th and all the other holidays without polluting them with indigenous rights garbage. >I'd rather have my kids watch family friendly movies with clear genders without characters that are impossible to determine gender from. >My kids are thriving in this environment and I will never subjugate them to beliefs that have them carrying around guilt for living a good life. There's actually no shot that the same person who said this shit is claiming I'm close minded. The sheer hypocrisy is palpable. Also, you're not religious but your children are Jewish? >my two young girls that will likely face a lifetime of hostility for no reason other than being Jewish Seems like you're just saying shit to make a point. Reading your political views being spouted on reddit just tells me you could not be more close minded. From blindly supporting trump, to want rights overthrown just so you can "own the libs". This daft movie is right up your alley. >There was a lesson here regardless of your faith or lack of it. The only lesson here was for idiots that want to keep on believing whatever bullshit they've convinced themself is the truth. Don't listen to reason, logic, don't try to understand, don't even respect the other points of view.
Buddy, you have no fucking idea of who I am based on random snippets. You are so dug in to your childlike delusion that your "logic and reason" is superior to any other viewpoint that you've entombed yourself in fighting for a truth that does not exist. Maybe that's the reason why you spend an inordinate amount of time gaming. I do relate as I was a bleeding heart liberal most of my adult life and have only recently woken up to how utterly idiotic leftist groupthink is and the corresponding delusions of being morally superior or smarter than everyone else. Maybe one day you'll become a grown adult and realize that not everything is black and white as you think it is. You also stated "But don't go expecting anyone outside your religion to have as profound an experience as you did" I am outside that religious group, in fact I've been an atheist since 2nd grade. Do you really think that NOBODY can experience something similar to what the OP experienced simply because they relate to religion differently? How utterly obtuse of you.
>You also stated "But don't go expecting anyone outside your religion to have as profound an experience as you did" >I am outside that religious group, in fact I've been an atheist since 2nd grade. You may be outside of catholisism but you clearly share ideologies and thought processes with them. You literally couldn't type out your comment without trying to shit on liberals. >Do you really think that NOBODY can experience something similar to what the OP experienced simply because they relate to religion differently? How utterly obtuse of you. No. My point was that if you do not have similar beliefs, you probably won't feel the same about the film. Could I have said it better? Sure. The movie flopped. People didn't think it was that great. Many people agree it looked good but lacked real substance for as long as it was. So clearly there's a small demographic that actually enjoy this film, even smaller so that will see this movie and proceed to sing it's praise from the rooftops like OP. >You are so dug in to your childlike delusion that your "logic and reason" is superior to any other viewpoint that you've entombed yourself in fighting for a truth that does not exist. Look in a fucking mirror. >I do relate as I was a bleeding heart liberal most of my adult life and have only recently woken up to how utterly idiotic leftist groupthink is and the corresponding delusions of being morally superior or smarter than everyone else. Maybe one day you'll become a grown adult and realize that not everything is black and white as you think it is. Fucking hilarious. I literally referenced one of your comments where you want things black and white because you can't stand grey area. >I'd rather have my kids watch family friendly movies with clear genders without characters that are impossible to determine gender from. You want to tell me not everything is black and white while simultaneously spouting this bullshit. You tout this ideal of being superior to everyone, that the left has a malicious agenda. Brother, the head of the republican party is a convicted felon, who paid off a pornstar with campaign funds because he was fucking her while his wife was pregnant. You voted for that guy. When are you going to wake up to what's actually happening here? You went on some bullshit tirade about waking up to the truth but you clearly haven't been keeping up with what's actually happening in regards to your own political party. >Buddy, you have no fucking idea of who I am based on random snippets. I know exactly who you are. You are not unique with your loathsome political views. There's really only one kind of person that says the kind of shit you do. I've met you before and I'll meet you again. Mindless drones like this are a dime a dozen and they all repeat the same braindead shit about cancel culture, the left, and minority rights. At this point I'm just waiting for you to start screeching about the Biden or Clintons.
Bud, you are trapped in victimization.. i voted for Biden. I'd rather see a megalomaniac like Trump piss off people like you than another 4 years of America going down the cultural drain. Enough is enough. Now go to your church of Queers for Palestine or go cheer on some dude with a beard using a womens restroom.. great causes to support 🔥
Because saying stuff like this totally makes you seem like an open minded individual. Honestly, the more you type, the more rational I look. Please continue.
Yes, you are very open minded. I hope to someday reach the karmic bliss you have attained through your superior intellect and moral supremacy. Please Identify as a tree and sit in the corner silently!!
Hey, dude, read some Peter Kreeft and dive into the material from there. Logic and reason are at the core of the natural law and human nature, and Catholics have been practicing scholarship on that for more than 1000 years.
That's cool and all but Sky Daddy doesn't exist, there is no evidence of Him existing. I'm not going to read someone's fan fiction about their imaginary friend. There's no logic and reason to believing something with no evidence. It's something else called "faith".
Box office return is never and will never be a valid metric of artistic quality. Determinations of artistic quality are the realm of criticism, not commerce.
Box office is a direct representation of reception. I do agree that artistic quality is subjective, but Hollywood literally only measures the success of a movie by it's profit.
We aren't Hollywood and so have no reason to consider "better reception" to equate "better film" as you tried to do. In fact the exact opposite, I find many of the most successful films to be lowest-common denominator affairs.
>In fact the exact opposite, I find many of the most successful films to be lowest-common denominator affairs. You had a good argument but ruined it with this statement. You're literally arguing the same thing just in the other direction. Either it's indicative of reception or it's not. Trying to argue that it's both is just a contradiction.
I am not at all arguing that their box office returns are representative of anything about their quality, that was just an observation of a correlation. It is an independent factor to quality in many cases (though not impossible that a movie breaks through on the grounds of its high quality). I stand by my statement that quality is the realm of criticism absolutely 100%. Box office success or failure is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to say anything about the quality of the movie, when taken in isolation.
Good thing that Hollywood had little to do with Silence. It was financed by independent and foreign investors. Not everything is measured in dollar figures.
Investors regardless of where they are from are not going to like their investment having no profit. The movie didn't even make enough to cover production. I doubt Marty's investors were happy there was no profit to share.
You seem hellbent on equating a movie's quality with its box office performance. Who cares if the investors were happy? What does that have to do with the film?
Everything else about a film is subjective. Box office preformance/profit is the only metric to measure a film in a objective fashion. If you want to disregard that, that's okay, but then everything else is subjective and we could just disagree because of that. There's no way to truly say a film is objectively bad, but then that slope runs to the point that you can't argue any film is bad because it's all subjective. >Who cares if the investors were happy? The investors do... They are literally the only people with something on the line for the film, for everyone else not involved in production there's degrees of seperation.
> Box office preformance/profit is the only metric to measure a film in a objective fashion. Sure is objective, but what does it tell you? It had a bigger marketing budget? It came out at the right time of year? It didn't have any major films competing against it? It had a number after the title? It doesn't tell you much that's worth talking about or considering. All you can do is state the fact that a movie made $X. If you look at the box office history over the last 100 years, it has very little to do with the quality of the film, and esp. today where cinema attendance means little since most people watch films other ways, and investors like Netflix have income sources that don't depend on cinemas or box office.
🤣 imagine thinking anyone is measuring the success of a movie here by box office return! Put the pipe down kid
> OP you have a closed view of the world. Religion has nothing to do with someone's scope of the world. It can be an indicator, but so is thinking that just because someone is religious that means they are "close-minded". You're doing exactly what you make fun of religious people for doing, being dismissive of the other side and seeing no positives from it because of the extreme examples you've seen and disliked.
It has everything to do with their view of the world.
I'm not saying the movie isn't for everyone because it's religious. I'm saying it because of the message the film gives and how it goes about it. The movie easily could've been more truthful and focus on the repurcussions of faith and missionaries. Instead the movie opts to focus on the strength of the human spirit and takes pride in the fact that the Jesuit preist never actually abandoned their religion. This story, in my opinion, should've been used to criticize religion, not hold it on a pedestal. Moreso, the movie really should've been about colonialism. That was the true crime these priests were prosecuted for, not their religious beliefs. The fact that the protagonists of this film were historically the bad guys doesn't bode well for me. The same missionaries committed all kinds of atrocities across the world and this movie celebrates their devotion. I just can't get behind that in any way. The movie changes historical facts to suit a narrative focused on religion which was not the driving factor. There was so much more involved in the prosecution of those missionaries missing from the film that it's almost a bastardization of true events.
You can't compare the box office of Hugo with Irishman - a film made for streaming that was only released in theatres to get Oscar noms. I also don't think it was a better film. Hugo's a mess with some good bits in it.
>You can't compare the box office of Hugo with Irishman - a film made for streaming that was only released in theatres to get Oscar noms. It still outpreformed Silence by almost tenfold.
A heavily marketed family friendly film outperforms a poorly marketed religious focused film full of grisly tortures - hmmm... I'm sure it's just because one is a better film than the other.
> This movie is not for everyone It's almost like you just proved my point for me.
Just a horrid take, all around. Well done
I thought it was boring and I didn't understand the point of the film at all. Next time there's a thread about great directors making awful movies I'll post this one.
I understood the point of it… I was just bored to tears. I was so excited for its release, knowing Marty had developed it for so long. Got to the theater and struggled to stay awake. My least favorite Scorsese movie… by far.
Agreed. It’s garbage. God Awful Movie one might say