Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#151 Post by Brian C » Mon Jan 09, 2017 1:38 pm

Since I quoted Glenn Kenny very unflatteringly in another thread, I'll excerpt his comments on this film more approvingly here:
Glenn Kenny wrote:...the anti-Silence folks pick nits that are either non-existent or entirely beside the point, conveniently skirting the fact that this is an adaptation of a Japanese novel. My opinion on this may be suspect because I was raised Catholic but for me the specifics of the apostasy took second place to larger and even more moving themes. That is, I eventually intuited something beyond Catholicism versus the shogunate and vice-versa. Past faith, I felt Silence addressing issues of will, free will, and whether there really is such a thing as human freedom. The questions it presents, I thought, were more moving and unsettling for the cinematic form in which they were presented. If you're looking at it and going down a list of the things you think it should be showing you because of the cultural baggage you want it to carry (and I'm not saying that the movie is inconsiderate of that cultural baggage—it's not), then you're not going to get it, and too bad.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#152 Post by domino harvey » Mon Jan 09, 2017 1:57 pm

I don't understand why his defense of the film against criticism is that it's based on a Japanese novel. Can someone translate that argument?

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#153 Post by Brian C » Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:12 pm

Well, it's more of an aside than the meat of his defense, and it's a rebuttal against "white savior" charges more than a defense of the film itself.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#154 Post by domino harvey » Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:13 pm

Ah, that actually does make sense. Thanks!

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#155 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:03 pm

That is just one aspect of the film I noticed and noted, but it did not have any impact in either direction whether I liked it on the whole. But it was something that was worth bringing up, in my opinion. I don't think it had to show me more of a diverse perspective, but when the narrative of the film is rather weak and monotonous to begin with, it's not unreasonable to speculate that one way that it could've been improved is to see both sides to the story we're seeing play out.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#156 Post by Michael Kerpan » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:23 pm

mfunk -- I take it you have not seen Shinoda's version?

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#157 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:28 pm

I have not. I would hope it is an improvement.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#158 Post by Brian C » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:38 pm

I don't have much of an argument if you thought the narrative was "weak and monotonous" - those are subjective judgments and you're obviously entitled to them. But I thought the film actually did give very sympathetic consideration to Inoue's point of view, to the extent that the whole point of the film seemed to be to show that Rodrigues (and by extension, his cohort of priests) was as
SpoilerShow
arrogant and weak in his moral stance as the Japanese made him out to be.
Simply put, the perspective of the Japanese persecutors could not have been made clearer. The film did not make a case that they were right to persecute the Christians so harshly, but it also was quite clear that the priests were foolish and disruptive and the source of all the troubles.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#159 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:47 pm

I just struggle with how cinematic it is to see people as they are psychologically and physically tortured in myriad ways, and for such a long runtime. I suppose Scorsese's ideal arc for a viewer is to think that they are 100% in Garfield's corner and, like Garfield, eventually realize that his pride has been causing all these problems. And do so the hard way via getting the same front row seat to all this cruelty. I do not want to imply that I was somehow "ahead" of the film, but I can't say I was ever able to see the priests as the heroes here (because just by arriving in Japan, they put many lives at risk in addition to their own), and so the impact of that transition in tone was muted.

User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#160 Post by captveg » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:05 pm

I don't think we're supposed to see the priests as heroes. I think we're supposed to see how we (meaning believing Christians, or those that can transplant themselves into that viewpoint/approach) often mistake our own purposes and missions for Christ's.

Then again, I may have a unique perspective on that having been in a position of a proselytizing missionary for a couple years (though obviously not in the desperate circumstances of the film).

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#161 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:07 pm

Certainly by the end of the film we aren't supposed to see them as heroes, but at its outset aren't we supposed to? It's actually sort of wild how much this shared in common with The Wolf of Wall Street to me - behavior by our "protagonists" that seems somewhat or totally appealing to some viewers, until the film decides to ratchet up the distaste to a volume level where you'd have to be truly dense not to realize the purpose of the whole thing is to wag a finger at the way they've been acting/the decisions they've been making this whole time. And I would assume there'll still be plenty of people who walk away thinking very fondly of the actions of the priests in this film, just as there's plenty of Jordan Belfort worship that followed The Wolf of Wall Street, even though, again, you'd have to be truly dense.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#162 Post by Michael Kerpan » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:12 pm

I still have yet to see Scorsese's version.

Judging from the novel and Shinoda's film -- I think one IS supposed to start off thinking of the priests as heroes -- and then gradually see them as brave but foolish and (disastrously) dangerous. Lots of moral complexity as things proceed toward the end.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#163 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:14 pm

I suppose this would've worked better for me if I wasn't trying to think ahead about what it meant for the rest of the picture that they were foolish enough to come to Japan and stir this pot back up for no reason. I don't know if that's Scorsese's fault or mine, or a little of both, but it does lessen the impact once we get through two solid hours of torture in the middle of the film to the climax.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#164 Post by Brian C » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:18 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:Certainly by the end of the film we aren't supposed to see them as heroes, but at its outset aren't we supposed to?
Perhaps, but at the outset, it's a matter of finding a missing colleague, who's disappeared in hazy circumstances. The "heroic" aspect of their quest obviously has religious overtones given their occupations, but it's not, strictly speaking, religious or even imperialist in nature. It actually begins more like a film in the mystery genre, that turns into something much different as it goes on.

I appreciate your thoughts on the film, by the way. Reading your criticisms has, in a weird way, made me like the film more than I originally did. I know that sounds like an insult but I promise I don't mean it that way - you've just got me thinking a little more critically about the film.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#165 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:28 pm

Thanks Brian.

And I get what you're saying, but the moment they meet some Christians their egos almost immediately latch on and don't let go. Instead of insisting that they need to keep moving as not to put anyone at risk, they go way overboard. It was difficult to sympathize with their plight too much from that point forward. It was like someone coming to free Anne Frank's family and asking if they wanted to throw a couple of block parties first.

User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#166 Post by captveg » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:35 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:Certainly by the end of the film we aren't supposed to see them as heroes, but at its outset aren't we supposed to? It's actually sort of wild how much this shared in common with The Wolf of Wall Street to me - behavior by our "protagonists" that seems somewhat or totally appealing to some viewers, until the film decides to ratchet up the distaste to a volume level where you'd have to be truly dense not to realize the purpose of the whole thing is to wag a finger at the way they've been acting/the decisions they've been making this whole time.
I think "heroes" is too strong of a term. (Investigators as said above is more on point, IMO). Certainly as the protagonists we are meant to see them positively, but I don't find their initial actions heroic as much as I find them dutiful. But again, perhaps that's because of my perspective - I never considered missionary work heroic, at least in the Luke Skywalker hero's journey sense.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#167 Post by swo17 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:40 pm

I took "heroes" in the sense of main characters that we are meant to identify with, at least initially, so that we might reflect on how to avoid their failings.

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#168 Post by FrauBlucher » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:40 pm

Just out of curiosity, did you folks see this in public venues, if so, what were the crowds (or lack thereof) like and could you tell the audience's feelings afterwards?

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#169 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:46 pm

swo17 wrote:I took "heroes" in the sense of main characters that we are meant to identify with, at least initially, so that we might reflect on how to avoid their failings.
Correct.
FrauBlucher wrote:Just out of curiosity, did you folks see this in public venues, if so, what were the crowds (or lack thereof) like and could you tell the audience's feelings afterwards?
Saw it at an arthouse matinee on Saturday at the Ritz 5 in Philadelphia. It was in their largest auditorium, about half full, and everyone was (heh) silent throughout and when the credits began to roll. Did not see any tears ('cept from LQ at one particularly harrowing point) and when we were walking out a twentysomething guy asked a much older man behind him if he liked it, and he said "yes, profoundly so," to which the twentysomething replied "I'm a big Scorsese fan." Which seemed like an interesting thing to say at that moment in time. Or not.

User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#170 Post by captveg » Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:12 pm

FrauBlucher wrote:Just out of curiosity, did you folks see this in public venues, if so, what were the crowds (or lack thereof) like and could you tell the audience's feelings afterwards?
Saw it at the ArcLight Hollywood. Probably 35-45 people. I think some (like myself) were positive, but I'd guess there were many that were not quite sure what to think of it. I was mostly lost in my own thoughts about it, so I couldn't get a read on the audience any more than that.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#171 Post by hearthesilence » Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:25 pm

Saw the first screening on Christmas Day at AMC Lincoln Square in NYC - it was actually a packed house, unusually spring-like too with the mild weather and so many people out and about. I think the audience generally liked it - most stayed for the credits.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#172 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:28 pm

The bloopers at the end make that decision well worth it.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#173 Post by Brian C » Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Saw it at the AMC River East. Big theatre that seats 330 or so, but it was mostly empty. However, the listing for the film at that location had vanished from Fandango at some point, not sure if that affected attendance. I was surprised there weren't more people and judging by the auditorium size, I imagine AMC was too.

Anyway, I don't know about audience reaction- we were all pretty spread out. However, I got a bit of applause myself, as a possible vagrant fell asleep at one point and was snoring extremely loudly, and I took it upon myself to wake him up.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#174 Post by movielocke » Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:51 pm

Complex film, Scorsese's methodical approach makes it all worth it.

I was shocked when they wanted to stay and put the lives of the villagers in danger, and from that point I was wondering how the journey of them realizing that their concern with saving their own souls (or becoming glorious martyrs with 'heroic' defiance) was a price that would be paid with the lives and torment of the people they minister.

In the revelation at the end, that the most christian thing to do is to set aside your own love of your own soul and if need be to give up salvation for the sake of the most wretched is amazingly done.

There are two things at play here I want to comment on. One, that in the end Rodrigues in some ways exists only to minister to his wretch, his Judas, Kikishiro and in many ways, requiring that he continually forgive his betrayals and the pain he increasingly feels is the closest he will ever come to being like Christ.

Two, I think there is an interesting thing going on with the idea of graven images of christian faith representing fidelity to that faith--in some respects, by forcing the christians and the priests to reject all the graven images attributed to their faith they are in some ways bringing them to a more spiritual place, but, and this is one of the points, in our human failings they are so attached to their idols of faith that their idols are their faith.

In a sense, the Silence Rodrigues has always heard is only broken when he sets aside his idols along with his pride and along with his fears for his own soul.

In some ways, the film suggested to me an interesting inversion: "What would it gain you to lose the whole world but save your own soul?"

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#175 Post by FrauBlucher » Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:55 am

Movielocke, very good! Your overview is spot on and I think a large part of the audiences will miss these points. Especially, those who have no connection to Christiananity.

This really speaks to the villagers who had more of a connection with the physical symbols than the actual meanings and teachings of Christiananity.
movielocke wrote:Two, I think there is an interesting thing going on with the idea of graven images of christian faith representing fidelity to that faith--in some respects, by forcing the christians and the priests to reject all the graven images attributed to their faith they are in some ways bringing them to a more spiritual place, but, and this is one of the points, in our human failings they are so attached to their idols of faith that their idols are their faith.
I saw the film at a DGA screening in NYC. It was about 85 to 90 percent filled. When Scorsese's name came up on the credits after the film, he got a lukewarm, polite response from the members. This particular crowd is a very tough sell for this kind of cinema. In the past I've seen members walk out of Malick and PT Anderson films. So, not surprised by this response to Silence.

Post Reply