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.

Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the