Skip to main content

No one should interfere with another man’s spirit.

Silence
(2016)

(SPOILERS) Martin Scorsese has now met the pope, so I guess the 30-year slog to make Silence was all worthwhile. I’m dubious that he’d have been granted an audience with his venerable holiness off the back of The Last Temptation of Christ, but then you never know with this one, not even quite how nefarious he may or may not be compared to his predecessors.


In the documentary attached to the Blu-ray, Scorsese mulls of the material (based on Shusaka Endo’s 1966 novel, previously adapted in 1971), that “Everyone’s right and everyone’s wrong”. For the shoguns, the burgeoning trend towards Christianity in seventeenth century Japan represents a threat to their culture, for where the Jesuits make their mark, armadas aren’t far behind. For the priests, this is an opportunity to bring the Word to heathens, to offer them salvation. So why, then, if Scorsese perceives the balance of viewpoints, does the most reasonable stance throughout seem to come from those inflicting brutal torture and punishment on the followers of God?


I suspect the problem is with the half-empty material. By positing “a silent God who accompanies a believer in adversity” you are essentially admitting to a faith that is entirely expressed through the willpower of the believer, that all the conjurings of divine instruction and purpose are the individual’s alone. Without an illustration, Terrence Malick-style, of what a priest who felt the presence of God might personify (and this is Scorsese’s lapsed reticence, that both here and in Last Temptation he clings to the materialist level, shorn of its heavenly import), we are essentially left with a redundant religion, one waiting to be knocked down. That doesn’t make Silence an uninteresting film or a failure, far from it, but it does mean that there’s little essential drama in watching a character who doesn’t really feel what he professes to believe be torn down.


And yet, the premise of the picture is, in its makers’ words, of a man who “gives up his faith to gain his faith”. Andrew Garfield’s Father Rodrigues apostosises and from thence leads a life of regular renunciations., Kichijiro (Yosuke Kubozuka) comes to see him during his later years, asking for absolution, the man who has made a habit of apostasies and about whom Rodrigues intoned at one point “Father, how could Jesus love a wretch like this? He is not worthy to be called evil”, so bringing full circle the idea of loving the least of Him, and recognising oneself in that person, as Rodrigues is now an apostate himself. It is in this realisation that Rodrigues hears God (“I suffered beside you. I was never silent”) and the silence of God provides validation (“It was in the silence that I heard your voice”).


But this somewhat flip reasoning, that the test and proof of faith is in the inverse to the generally expected flourish of the same, never quite resonates. Much has been made of Rodrigues’ path to apostasy. He is told to “Think about the suffering you inflict upon these people, just because of your dream of a Christian Japan”, and in the filmmaker’s eyes, whether or not he professes otherwise, the verdict of the Inquisitor holds sway, that for Rodrigues “The price for your glory is their suffering”. The Inquisitor says of Father Ferreira, who came before and committed apostasy before, “He is held in great esteem now, which is why I believe he came in the first place”. The implication is clear: these priests have only told themselves they are acting out of faith in God. What they are actually doing is indulging hubris, and self-exaltation. Ferreira points out Rodrigues’ pride as he pleads with him, knowing that he too carried the cross of romanticised martyrdom, of fantasising Jesus’ experience in the Garden of Gethsemane for himself (“They would never compare themselves to Jesus. Do you have the right, to make them suffer?”)


The problem is, Scorsese is unable to telegraph any conviction, so there never seems to be a really conflict – we never believe Rodrigues really believes, and as a lapsed Catholic the director fails to imbue the film or characters with that sense, even with a sense that such a state of grace could exist. So the salvation of quiet faith seems like a cop out, an easy option, however you slice it. In Silence, the possibility of “true faith” is absent from Garfield and Scorsese’s vision. Only pride. And the knock-on is that, while it’s an interesting idea – validating this interior state of belief as opposed to exterior signifiers – one is left wondering how it is supposed to square with the conviction that it is only by standing up against oppression that change is ever enacted (if one takes it beyond a mere religious principle – and if one doesn’t, one is left merely supposing that Scorsese is coming from a point where faith withers on the vine, that it is all ego and without substance).


Particularly since Scorsese’s somewhat artificial – as in, it never carries the directorial design of a genuine force – whisper of God is preceded by incidents persuading us that it is all in Rodrigues’ mind. So much so that his attempts to protest faith verge on the farcical. No sooner have he and Garupe (Adam Driver) popped up from their hideaway for a breath of fresh air and open sky than Rodrigues pronounces a passing hawk as a sign of God’s blessing on their rash act – upon which they are spied out by locals. With this primer, it should be no surprise that, when he next believes God has paid attention (“Thank you lord, for hearing my prayer”), one of the devotes’ heads is lopped off before his eyes. If the entire film wasn’t so desperately severe in tone, you’d think Scorsese was displaying a dark sense of humour. The same kind of self-supported divine communication is there in Rodrigues’ vision of Jesus staring back in his reflection from a stream (a moment so reverently composed as to be unintentionally funny), and the self-abnegating invitation “Step on me. It’s alright” when presented with a fumi-e (notably, this occurs after Ferreira, his old teacher, has told Rodrigues that Jesus would not let these people die if he were there).


Rodrigues’ sense of faith is immature and facile enough that he asks his captors to test it, an act of arrogance and foolishness that encourages his flock’s suffering. We have seen how mercurial his sense of self-worth is. Before he becomes disillusioned by Kichijiro, he buys into the genuineness of the man’s renewal of faith, which “makes me feel my life is of value”. Rodrigues acts out of ego, rather than selflessness, and it’s ironic that, of the Japanese Christians’ fascination with physical emblems of the church, he frets “I worry they value these poor signs of faith more than faith itself” (which could be a wider commentary on iconography-heavy Roman Catholicism), when Scorsese will use a exactly such a material signifier in the final shot, of the body of Rodrigues clutching a cross – he was not an apostate in his heart. I would counter that, in the picture Scorsese has made, rather than the one he thinks he has, Rodrigues was not an apostate because he was never a believer. At least, he never made me believe he was a believer.


I hesitate to suggest part of the problem with this may be Garfield. Rather, I think it’s the nature of the character he’s been given to play. There isn’t enough of Driver’s unrelenting conviction to really provide contrast (although, his is very much the strength of the hard-liner, rather than one you necessarily perceive faith in). Regardless, the standout performance in Silence is far and away Liam Neeson’s.


Much needed too, since I’d all but forgotten just how good he can be, what with the number of disposable action-dad thrillers he’s been churning out of late. There’s a genuine pain and regret to Ferreira from the first scene; you can see the realisation of his lack, of how he doesn’t measure up to what is asked of him. He is presented almost as an inverse Colonel Kurtz, but instead of finding madness, Rodriques’ Willard finds shocking reason and sanity.


We don’t believe Ferreira at first, any more than Rodrigues does, when he professes to be grateful for his opportunity, that it is “Fulfilling to finally be of use” by writing a text that will refute the terms of Christianity. But then he sets out his objection to their promotion of their faith: “The Japanese only believed in their distortion of our gospel. So they did not believe at all. They never believed”. He reveals to Rodrigues something common among missionaries, that indigenous peoples applied the tenets of the Christian faith to a pre-existing local deity, in this case “the sun of God”. One thing is certainly true of Silence: the picture is uninterested in dealing with absolutes. When Rodrigues suggests of Ferreira, “You’re trying to justify your own weakness”, he assuredly is, but he’s also hitting on a very uncomfortable truth for those with a rose-tinted vision of their “calling”.


Ferreira: Only our Lord can judge our heart.
Rodrigues: You said, “Our Lord”.
Ferreira: I doubt it.

There’s a quiet honesty to Neeson’s imploring performance, one that energises the picture in a manner absent from our sojourn with Garfield. Whatever Ferreira’s ongoing religious belief maybe, he does not consider it justifies the deaths of others at his invitation, particularly to an impassive response (“I prayed Rodrigues. It doesn’t help. Go on, pray. But pray with your eyes open”). Later, when the two ex-priests are engaged in pointing out hidden Christian symbols in imported objects, Rodrigues believes he has caught out Ferreira’s admission of persisting faith, the suggestion being that he too nurses a closet conviction. But this rather reduces Christianity to a luxury item, one to flourish at home in secret, a pastime with no real consequence. Scorsese dedicates the film “For the Japanese Christians and their pastors”, which seems a little odd for a picture so reticent of faith having any substance. Would they be so grateful for the dedication, for being told all one can expect from a relationship with God is non-responsiveness, or at best self-deluding feedback?


Nevertheless, Silence is as flawed but fascinating as Scorsese’s other overtly religious entries, Last Temptation and Kundun, reflecting a director who approaches the steps of a mountain he recognises he has no chance of scaling; one might almost assume he has chosen material that justifies his “less than” space in respect of faith. A word for Issey Ogata’s performance as Inquisitor Inoue Mashashige; it’s a brilliant thing, funny and mocking, almost caricatured, but with cunning and grit behind the reason and manners. It goes unmentioned, but the real Inoue had apparently once been a Christian who apostosised. I don’t know that Silence will be seen as another Scorsese masterpiece in time – some proclaimed it so instantly – but it’s his most considered, ruminative picture in two decades. Perhaps it’s appropriate, then, that it shouldn’t be thing of perfection, since it is reflective of subject matter that refuses to embrace tidy conclusions and neat positions.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Lieutenant, you run this station like chicken night in Turkey.

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) (SPOILERS) You can’t read a review of Assault on Precinct 13 with stumbling over references to its indebtedness – mostly to Howard Hawks – and that was a preface for me when I first caught it on Season Three of BBC2’s Moviedrome (I later picked up the 4Front VHS). In Precinct 13 ’s case, it can feel almost like an attempt to undercut it, to suggest it isn’t quite that original, actually, because: look. On the other hand, John Carpenter was entirely upfront about his influences (not least Hawks), and that he originally envisaged it as an outright siege western (rather than an, you know, urban one). There are times when influences can truly bog a movie down, if it doesn’t have enough going for it in its own right. That’s never the case with Assault on Precinct 13 . Halloween may have sparked Carpenter’s fame and maximised his opportunities, but it’s this picture that really evidences his style, his potential and his masterful facility with music.

The wolves are running. Perhaps you would do something to stop their bite?

The Box of Delights (1984) If you were at a formative age when it was first broadcast, a festive viewing of The Box of Delights  may well have become an annual ritual. The BBC adaptation of John Masefield’s 1935 novel is perhaps the ultimate cosy yuletide treat. On a TV screen, at any rate. To an extent, this is exactly the kind of unashamedly middle class-orientated bread-and-butter period production the corporation now thinks twice about; ever so posh kids having jolly adventures in a nostalgic netherworld of Interwar Britannia. Fortunately, there’s more to it than that. There is something genuinely evocative about Box ’s mythic landscape, a place where dream and reality and time and place are unfixed and where Christmas is guaranteed a blanket of thick snow. Key to this is the atmosphere instilled by director Renny Rye. Most BBC fantasy fare doe not age well but The Box of Delights is blessed with a sinister-yet-familiar charm, such that even the creakier production decisi

White nights getting to you?

Insomnia (2002) (SPOILERS) I’ve never been mad keen on Insomnia . It’s well made, well-acted, the screenplay is solid and it fits in neatly with Christopher Nolan’s abiding thematic interests, but it’s… There’s something entirely adequateabout it. It isn’t pushing any kind of envelope. It’s happy to be the genre-bound crime study it is and nothing more, something emphasised by Pacino’s umpteenth turn as an under-pressure cop.

We got two honkies out there dressed like Hassidic diamond merchants.

The Blues Brothers (1980) (SPOILERS) I had limited awareness of John Belushi’s immense mythos before  The Blues Brothers arrived on retail video in the UK (so 1991?) My familiarity with SNL performers really began with Ghostbusters ’ release, which meant picking up the trail of Jake and Elwood was very much a retrospective deal. I knew Animal House , knew Belushi’s impact there, knew 1941 (the Jaws parody was the best bit), knew Wired was a biopic better avoided. But the minor renaissance he, and they, underwent in the UK in the early ’90s seemed to have been initiated by Jive Bunny and the Mastermixers, of all things; Everybody Needs Somebody was part of their That Sounds Good to Me medley, the first of their hits not to make No.1, and Everybody ’s subsequent single release then just missed the Top Ten. Perhaps it was this that hastened CIC/Universal to putting the comedy out on video. Had the movie done the rounds on UK TV in the 80s? If so, it managed to pass me by. Even bef

Maybe he had one too many peanut butter and fried banana sandwiches.

3000 Miles to Graceland (2001) (SPOILERS) The kind of movie that makes your average Tarantino knockoff look classy, 3000 Miles to Graceland is both aggressively unpleasant and acutely absent any virtues, either as a script or a stylistic exercise. The most baffling thing about it is how it attracted Kevin Costner and Kurt Russell, particularly since both ought to have been extra choosy at this point, having toplined expensive bombs in the previous half decade that made them significantly less bankable names. And if you’re wondering how this managed to cost the $62m reported on Wiki, it didn’t; Franchise Pictures, one of the backers, was in the business of fraudulently inflating budgets .

I dreamed about a guy in a dirty red and green sweater.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) (SPOILERS) I first saw A Nightmare on Elm Street a little under a decade after its release, and I was distinctly underwhelmed five or so sequels and all the hype. Not that it didn’t have its moments, but there was an “It’ll do” quality that reflects most of the Wes Craven movies I’ve seen. Aside from the postmodern tease of A New Nightmare – like Last Action Hero , unfairly maligned – I’d never bothered with the rest of the series, in part because I’m just not that big a horror buff, but also because the rule that the first is usually the best in any series, irrespective of genre, tends to hold out more often than not. So now I’m finally getting round to them, and it seemed only fair to start by giving Freddy’s first another shot. My initial reaction holds true.

He must have eaten a whole rhino horn!

Fierce Creatures (1997) (SPOILERS) “ I wouldn’t have married Alyce Faye Eicheberger and I wouldn’t have made Fierce Creatures.” So said John Cleese , when industrial-sized, now-ex gourmand Michael Winner, of Winner’s Dinners , Death Wish II and You Must Be Joking! fame (one of those is a legitimate treasure, but only one) asked him what he would do differently if he could live his life again. One of the regrets identified in the response being Cleese’s one-time wife (one-time of two other one-time wives, with the present one mercifully, for John’s sake, ongoing) and the other being the much-anticipated Death Fish II , the sequel to monster hit A Fish Called Wanda. Wanda was a movie that proved all Cleese’s meticulous, focus-group-tested honing and analysis of comedy was justified. Fierce Creatures proved the reverse.

How do you melt somebody’s lug wrench?

Starman (1984) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s unlikely SF romance. Unlikely, because the director has done nothing before or since suggesting an affinity for the romantic fairy tale, and yet he proves surprisingly attuned to Starman ’s general vibes. As do his stars and Jack Nitzsche, furnishing the score in a rare non-showing from the director-composer. Indeed, if there’s a bum note here, it’s the fairly ho-hum screenplay; the lustre of Starman isn’t exactly that of making a silk purse from a sow’s ear, but it’s very nearly stitching together something special from resolutely average source material.

You absolute horror of a human being.

As Good as it Gets (1997) (SPOILERS) James L Brooks’ third Best Picture Oscar nomination goes to reconfirm every jaundiced notion you had of the writer-director-producer’s capacity for the facile and highly consumable, low-cal, fast-food melodramatic fix with added romcom lustre. Of course, As Good as it Gets was a monster hit, parading as it does Jack in a crackerjack, attention-grabbing part. But it’s a mechanical, suffocatingly artificial affair, ponderously paced (a frankly absurd 139 minutes) and infused with glib affirmations and affections. Naturally, the Academy lapped that shit up, because it reflects their own lack of depth and perception (no further comment is needed than Titanic winning the big prize for that year).

Remember. Decision. Consequence.

Day Break (2006) (SPOILERS) Day Break is the rare series that was lucky to get cancelled. And not in a mercy-killing way. It got to tell its story. Sure, apparently there were other stories. Other days to break. But would it have justified going there? Or would it have proved tantalising/reticent about the elusive reason its protagonist has to keep stirring and repeating? You bet it would. Offering occasional crumbs, and then, when it finally comes time to wrap things up, giving an explanation that satisfies no one/is a cop out/offers a hint at some nebulous existential mission better left to the viewer to conjure up on their own. Best that it didn’t even try to go there.