Silence Review

silence

Martin Scorsese returns to Christianity with Silence, based on the historical fiction novel. At nearly 3 hours in length, how else would you kick off 2017? Lee reviews.

LeeButton

Did Jesus really have it so bad? Perhaps one of the unintended questions from Silence, director Martin Scorsese’s latest religious passion project, but after witnessing the intense and prolonged suffering of main protagonist Rodrigues for nearly two hours, you start to question whether Jesus really did suffer enough before claiming the burden of all sin. The parallel Rodrigues forms with Jesus, and his conflict to out-Jesus Jesus becomes something of a fascinating exploration of Christian suffering, and while it’s not a particularly serious question, the film does make you wonder at what point Jesus was ready to let Rodrigues know to throw in the towel and let him accept second-rung saviour for an immeasurable amount more the pain.

An exploration of Christian, Buddhist and human faith through the trials and tribulations typically expected of a gruelling spiritual test, at times Silence conjures moments of enlightenment and clarity through its visceral cilice. Sympathy is the operative word, and the scenario given, of a man tested of his faith and his compassion for others pulled to its limits, is an effective one. Through cloud-soaked visuals and sombre silence we sit idly as Rodrigues bears his own cross, burdened by his own ambitions and beliefs, and regardless of creed it’s difficult to find a reason not to emphasise, to see our own battles through his efforts.

It’s a shining praise for the set-pieces, the acting, the cinematography and the general pace of the movie; at nearly three hours it seldom lulls, though it can break the spirits. Revelling in human misery can lead to its own sense of self-discovery that can have you, the audience, questioning your own limits in a cruel world; and there’s something to be praised in how the film compliments that notion through its portrayal of silence, and the lack thereof, in its surface and metanarrative. There’s so much to make of the audio here alone, so much to read into, that those who enjoy the scholarly side of film are sure to be in for a grim but satisfying time as well. Everything builds in on itself to present one of the most densely crafted pieces of cinema in a long time, a somewhat compact blending of old cinema and modern spectacle that really can hold the attention quite firmly.

All of which makes it more the shame when its central narrative can’t support the ambitions behind it. While there is something to be made of the real historical horrors that came of the “Kakure Kirishitan” movement and the times surrounding it, to establish the narrative, the Buddhists had to be portrayed as entities of uncomprehensive malice. The framing toys with the idea of breaking down the two central faiths, to a point where one could agree when the narrative points out their essential similarities that there are essential similarities to agree upon, but it in no way evenly bestows upon Buddhism the same humility that it affords Christianity. We hear no accounts of the equivocal moments in history like the Crusades, we see no Buddhist peasant suffer nearly the same poverty or seclusion and we never draw attention to the human beings doing the actual damage; only rank names, cultural titles and Japan itself are to blame.

Even when based on real stories (which this is only in the loosest sense), bias upends the balance of the moral compass and essentially corrodes at the integrity of the film. “Political Correctness” isn’t the point; simply a fairer view of the events allow it to feel less like manipulation, and grants the viewer some agency in what information they’re taking in.

Admitting that some Christians are corrupt, and not in the sense that they are corrupt against the rules and expectations of Christianity but as actual human beings actually hurting others intentionally for gain or power or something negative and base, would not distort the core message of the movie and maintain a little more of a fairer leaning on the people involved. Even having a Buddhist character who isn’t essentially a crazed, anti-Christian maniac would make the difference. When introducing a companion character for Rodrigues, a relatable captor as they do with Tadanobu Asano’s interpreter, would it miss the point to have him show unabashed sympathy as opposed to relishing torture as punishment for perceived ignorance? If our only crossing point is Ferreira, then we don’t have a crossing point; we have a Christian movie masquerading as a historical piece, pretending to question faith when all it is doing is congratulating Christianity.

Not to spoil, but the ending seals the deal on this reading. What could have been a great realist take on the honour and strength of faith is tarnished with a phoney-baloney Deus Ex Patronise and a reveal so hilariously unambiguous it undoes much of the film’s strengths with regards to faith in adversary by stating loudly and clearly: but it didn’t matter anyway. It’s cheap, and ironically puts very little faith in the audience being able to decide anything for themselves, even in a narrative as one-sided as this often is.

It’s a real shame, because Silence really is still worth watching no matter who you are, but the manipulative nature that runs the show leaves the film with an asterisk to its focus on human sympathy: the movie wants you to sympathise with some more than others. How very Un-Christian.

B+

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Silence Review

  1. So deep as always Lee, love how you ponder films. It’s funny as in the lead up to the finale I thought that Scorsese was doing nothing else but trying to say there is no god, Silence, and all that. So when the audience hear the voice of god I found this a little jarring and a tad confusing. From this point until the ending was the only section I didn’t like in the film but you’ve raised an interesting point regarding the bias. A stimulating piece of film to start the year nonetheless, I’m hoping for more of the same.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Definitely man, at least it was challenging in some form! I found the crux of the film was to challenge faith as a concept, and so it makes sense you thought he wass essentially saying there is no God, so when he clearly goes out of his way to say there IS a God of some form then the film totally betrays that side of the narrative and you not liking that part makes sense, because he totally sells out much of the good work he had done to that point hahaha
      Should be a good year! ;D

      Like

      • Yeah that train of thought definitely makes sense, I don’t think I find as much issue with it as you do mate, without the voice of God bit I suppose he just shows that Garfield’s character keeps faith through a few other ways too. However, the inclusion of the voice is a shame though, just doesn’t make a lot of sense – something that has very little ground to stand on narratively. I also couldn’t work out if Neeson’s character had properly apostatised or not or if he had just been pretending the same as Garfield…I think I need to watch it again haha.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I think much of that is intentionally ambiguous, which is good, and which explains the not knowing where you lie feeling hahaha
        It’s that I wanted more of though, because much like real religion we’re open to interpret it, question it, have faith in it even without tangible evidence; it seemed like something the movie was exploring until it just stops hahaha
        Still did enjoy it though, in a general sense, just wouldn’t be rushing back. Let me know how that second watch goes 😀

        Like

  2. Great insight into the film and interesting things to think about.
    I watched this last night and, while I was taken by the skill of making this film, I wasn’t entirely won over by it. I will agree with you about the cinematography and the pace, it certainly didn’t feel like anywhere near the running time. I wasn’t wowed by the performances; Driver didn’t have much to do but was solid, Neeson the same, Garfield I’ve never believed in anything (and I’m not entirely sure why).
    I guess I struggled to sympathise with Rodrigues and his mission, probably caused by coming from a completely non-religious viewpoint. It all seemed a bit pointless to me (and quite obnoxious that he rest of the world need this religion rather than their own faiths) and this was put into place quite succinctly by ex-Ferreira when he explains what the peasants have been understanding from their teachings all along; it was futile to begin with.
    A good film, well worth a watch, but not great. I think your B+ rating is spot on.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You’re entirely right, and I figured that would be something people might have contention with regarding Rodrigues and the Christian mission. I think they do carve a decent arc out of his arrogance, but they never seem to connect the dot between Rodrigues Ego coming from Christianity and Christianity being egocentric. It seems willing to question the nature of faith, but not the faith it’s trying to push because, at the end of it all, faith is still unshakeable? Meanwhile the Buddhists are essentially faith Nazis, it’s a little ridiculous!
      But glad you agree man, the good is good, the bad is weird and shaky. Looking forward to your full thoughts!

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Pingback: ASC Podcast EP#20 – Paul Thomas Anderson Retrospective Pt.5 | Big Picture Reviews

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s