Nope, I didnt find it boring at all. I think it was really important to hear him grapple with his choices and seeking guidance within himself. I thought it as a great movie. And was riveted all the way. I think it was a movie about the differences between faith and blind faith.
Boring? I was fascinated by this film, watching Andrew Garfield's character start out at a 10 before finally bottoming out at a 1. It even made me think what I would have done if I was in that position and my loved ones or strangers were suffering. But then I'm coming at this from the prospective of a religious person which isn't how you saw it. It's good to get different viewpoints.
wdcain1 This movie doesn't matter if you are religious or a Christian or not. In response to you mentioning that it made you question your own potential actions in a hypothetical future, I just wanted to comment and say that I had my own experience when the lives of my loved ones were once at stake as well as mine. I was without any faith, as I was lost and although I am not lost anymore I am still not a believer of any doctrine written by another than what I have written for myself. But what I was going to say, is that there was a point, when I could not rationalize anything but suicide. It was the only answer for me, because it has always been impossible for me to believe what is to me lacking in quite a bit of hard evidence. So I was lost and disillusioned, as my life had been pulled out from beneath me like a rug, and the choice I had became whether or not I would continue suffering what was unbearable, having a wretched existence that could not justify itself in any way whatsoever. Then I realized the people that my death would affect. I realized that my parents would be totally fucked in the head more than they are already if I killed myself, and then my younger siblings, not only having to deal with that on their own would have to be raised also by those parents that I practically sought vengeance on for having brought me into this world. Therefore I had to weigh my suffering against my two younger siblings' and what suffering I would cause them, as well as perhaps my family outside of my home, my cousin and some other acquaintances. After weighing what was to me, an unbearable illusory waste, against the waste that I would have inflicted on others, I decided in the end that my life was not my own to take. It was a life that was more the people's than my own. And so that is what I live with, and the question of faith is not one of god for me, but of whether or not I may continue to have faith that through my suffering I will benefit my neighbors and multiply what is love rather than that cycle which I was sucked into that is suffering. This is now where I find the meaning in my life. It is in my neighbors, for they are all that I am now that I am not my own.
Scorsese is one of best directors of all time no doubt!! This movie stunk. It's very hard to make historical religious movie If you're not agnostic or at least have nothing to do with the religion of the movie.( Spielberg made a 4hr black&white 18*⭐ film about the holocaust.)He makes the best gangster movies unchallenged. He did make Cape fear which was awesome as well ass Shutter island and Wolf of Wall Street, Great too. If you're a Boomer the holy Trinity is Mean Street's ,Taxi Driver, Raging bull If you're older Millennial /young genX Casino, Goodfella's, Departed. The Last scene sadly Improbable...but He put what he wished happened.... No worries I'm still Is a huge fan He wrote &signed a question I had for him when he was a guest teacher at my ex's film school. I never met him but my X Gave me an awesome Xmas present made a collage out of it really cool
this movie is amazing, other people could not appreciate it because they delude themselves that their truths are not based on faith also. For so much of our lives are dictated by "falsities" that are made manifest by belief; show me in nature an atom of honor, duty, mercy, grace, piety, etc... none of that is naturalistic, all of that are artifice, yet it is made real through belief which in turn leads to practice and observance. Now, it is becoming more apparent that as we pass through this age, we are called to worship the gods of modernity, hedonism, debauchery, degeneracy, the senseless search of sensation, and of myopic materialism.
One of Martin Scorcese's hidden gems. One of the best moments of the film was when Andrew Garfield's character finally comes into contact with Liam Neeson's character, who explains to him the that the reason why Christianity fails to take root in Japan is because the prevailing culture and philosophy can't conceptualize anything beyond Man and Nature. When Christian missionaries mention the 'Son of God', the Japanese faithful interpret it as the Sun of 'God'.
But the Jesuit Francis Xavier is responsible for the Goa Inquisition which lasted for 300 years in Goa, India by torturing and executing many innocent lives from Hindus to Jews, Muslims, Buddhist and non-Catholic Christians who refused to convert to a corrupt religious organization of Roman Catholicism.
"Sun of 'God'" This doesn't really make sense. Why would the Japanes confuse Son and Sun?, they don't speak English so the two words shouldn't be related.
@@ikengaspirit3063 The ancient Japanese god is Amaterasu, the embodiment of the sun, and is still worshiped today. Also, the Dainichi that appears in the movie refers to the great sun. This is a Buddhist term. Many gods are worshiped in Japan, but the highest one is the sun.
Actually, the Jesuits and the Inquisition where two indenpendent institutions, so much so, that it wouldn't be inconceivable that a Portuguese jesuist priest would be against the inquisitions, in fact, the most famous jesuist priest here in Portugal (he was born in Brazil though, around the time of the setting of this film), Father António Vieira was in favour of coverting non-Christians like African and Native peoples by a peaceiful and comprehensive dialogue with them. (I also end up being persecuted by the Inquision) You have also to take note that here in Portugal, the Jesuit order was expelled by the inquisition too...
There were Jesuits who held positions in the hierarchy of both Portugese and Spanish inquisitions. Much more importantly, they created inquisitions themselves under Spanish and Portugese rule abroad. To name a few created by Jesuits: Goa, Brazil, and New Spain. So while they were separate institutions, so was the Roman curia and Italian Inquisition, but they are also inseparable as actual people.
So what, there were inpendent from each still, so much so that they competed with each for having power both inside the the Iberian Peninsula and in their colonies abroad, thats why they were expelled from Portugal in 1759, so that the Prime Minister at that time could at same time centrelise his power in Portugal, and also take care of the Indians of Brazil, since they previously under the "protection" from Spanish Jesuit priests, you can see this in that famous movie from 80's, "The Mission", with Robert De Niro having the role of the protagonist. Btw I think that movie could be a very interesting one for the next "Based on a True Story" series...
+Rafael Melo there's actually a lot of argument over why the Jesuits were expelled. I don't really think there is a consensus POV on it. The Spanish also expelled them from their empire in 1769. Some say it was for greater taxes to go to the crown after the 7 years war. Others say it was a steady change in theology. Many further argue it was to secularize certain parts of governance. It's definitely an open question. I don't see how their expulsion a century later connects to their status during the Iberian Union period though. How would you connect that?
Rafael Melo I agree with you, for example in new Spain (Mexico) while there were Jesuits only the Dominics were allowed to participate in the Inquisition
Well that's unfortunate. I really don't understand how someone could be bored by this film. It was a moving portrait of jesuits and asked interesting questions about faith. Too bad. I loved it.
not only Jesuits.. the same applies to the NATIVE AMERICANS who were forced to convert to Catholicism. There is also the movie LA OTRA CONQUISTA(The other Conquest) which delves into the same issues the Aztec/Mexica had when the Catholics were burning Mexican(Animist)people who did not convert.
Zacharie Guillerey denial of the existence of God doesn’t mean you are completely absent of virtue... the Catholics don’t believe that at least but I only studied Catholicism Islam and eastern religion I can’t speak for Protestantism or Judaism
Hes not making a conspiracy theory, hes giving the movie a conclusion. Cut to black as he burns? Go back and rewatch that scene, it would have been an INSANELY unsatisfying conclusion. This ending gave it an inspiring uptick at the end, that was about Scorcese's personal battles with religion, finding hope hidden in silence, never mentioned, beneath what appears to be defeat. The reason this movie is slow is because its supposed to be a very grueling protrayal of loss of faith and struggle. I think youre right in saying that the reason you didnt connect with this movie at all is because, as you said, youre not religious, and it seems that you dont really have too much empathy for spiritual.experience either. Either way you just didnt get this movie. I appreciate the history, but I think you should give deeper thought to a films actual meaning before you dismiss it as boring.
Its creatin' a conspiracy by havin' us believe that those who were Buddhist had been quietly keepin' secret chants for christian values. This would leave many into believing its entire bull without second guessin'. History films, if done poorly, could effect the mind set into falsely followin' nonsense that even parents would say its unsuitable.
Silence was not based on a true story, rather than a novel inspired in the Portuguese presence in Japan, but it's a fictitious story. If you want to learn about it, search for Luis Frois.
I saw it pop up in discussion groups and history outlets, but then again I don't really watch live TV. I was kinda excited about it, given the subject. But then again, the history field really can be a bunch of nerds hiding away in libraries, LOL. Was it not shown with ads and whatnot?
This movie was extremely interesting and not boring in the slightest. I'm kinda surprised you would even think that. But I guess everyone is different.
One interesting side note is that the Japanese Inquisition is, unintentionally, responsible for our current day understanding of the spread of popular literacy in early modern Japan. Villagers were often made to sign a register at their local Buddhist temples to affirm that they were not Christians. Of course, most villagers at this time were illiterate, and so signed the register with a dot instead of using kana. But as time goes on and literacy spreads to the peasant caste, we start to see a gradual increase in the number of people signing with kana or in the cases of some provincial literati, signing with Ka-O (simplified signature using radicals from kanji). There's a book on the subject, Popular Literacy in Early Modern Japan, by Richard Rubinger. It's of particular interest, especially if you have a knowledge of how European popular literacy spread and you wanted to compare and contrast.
As a brazilian, let me help you with the name Ferreira: Fe(they way you were saying is right) rrei = hey ra = ra (basically double r's in the middle of a word have the H sound in english) Also Cristóvão Cris = krees tó = to as in "todd" vão = somewhat like "vawn" *flies away*
I would expect an Iberian Jesuit being all offended at the Japanese Inquisition. It's easy to not notice your hypocrisy when you're passionate enough about whatever you're arguing, it is quite easy to provoke passionate emotional responses when one's religion is threatened. Zealots throughout history have objected to atrocities (allegedly) committed by heathens, before ordering similar atrocities to take place on said heathens. This isn't even restricted to the past, either; note the parallels between the most militant, zealous, and loony Muslims in the Middle East and their counterparts in the USA. Of course, none of this is intentional. But if it was, and if the characters recognized it, it might have helped support/create some neat internal conflict. You know, "is there any difference between the religions" or something like that.
+Timothy McLean good point! Sometimes historians, including myself, give too much agency to historical characters. And it is important to point out that people's motivations and principles are always confused in the moment of action. Jesuits were nothing if not hypocritical about their activities at home and abroad. Still gives me a good hard laugh. If we are going to be subjected to this lengthy inner monologue though, it would've been nice to get that last question you said. Would've made for a more morally ambiguous story
Interesting break down of one of my favorite books and movies. I agree with your thoughts on the ending. It wasn't in the book and the ambiguity of Endo Shusaku causes much more discussion and thought. Quick correction: Of the 26 (3:16) put to death only 6 were foreign missionaries and of the 20 Japanese put to death in that group 3 were boys under the age of 14. They were arrested in Kyoto and were walked to Nagasaki after having their ears and/or noses cut off Thoughts: The Japanese rulers quickly realized that execution was not a deterrent for the Christian believers and changed to humiliation of apostasy and fumi-e. Fumi-e has a massive psychological weight. I have been to a tiny museum outside Nagasaki that has relics of the Hidden Christians one of which was the prayer they would say in reparation after stepping on the fumi-e year after year for 250 years. In fact I am more taken with the centuries long fortitude of the Hidden Christians holding onto their faith under fear of death. The story of Urakami Christians in 1858 is amazing. Aside: The main character of the book and the "autobiographical" character of Silence was Kikijiro. Everyone misses that.
I'm sorry you didn't like this movie, I for one loved it! Have you read the book? Are there any other books or films featuring Europeans in Japan during this time period?
I did not read the book, just summaries - if it's fictional, I almost never read the book the movie is based on. Read 3 books for this anyways, so best not to add superfluous reading. The only one I can remember doing so was _300,_ and that was b/c the comic is kinda fun. Boxer (in the description) is a good read though, maybe a bit too theological at points for my tastes, but good nonetheless. There's plenty of history books on European contact during the Sengoku Period, but I can't really think of anything that isn't Japanese anime (none are good historically speaking, but what do you expect from anime). Even Japanese films don't really cover the subject, to my knowledge, but then again, I've only really seen "the classics" of Japanese cinema.
Why? The novel has no bearing on the truth it is based on, nor the criticism of the film. Whether it is adapted from a novel or not does not change the final product. One does not need to read the basis in order appreciate the product; so why is it any different to criticize?
Film is different from book. Thus translating one to the other does not mean all the words should be included, but rather than words should be made to pictures - nor is anyone forced to adapt a book into film in some exact transliteration. And the book as it happens manages to be less boring.
Today's movies are all about action. Something always has to happen, the plot has to change every few minutes and keep you interested, just like our smartphones and reality shows do. But that's why I love this movie. Plenty of action, yes, but also so many moments of thoughts, deep thinking , reflection and even just silence (yes I know , I wrote the name of the film). No need of doing anything. Just lisen, wonder and wander in your own thoughts alongside with the characters. You might find it boring. I find it extremely fascinating and personal, almost like reading a book!
Okay, on the Spanish Inquisition part. The numer of people killed was between 3000 and 5000. It might look high, but let's remember that the number of people trialed by them was 125,000, so the pertentage of people executed was low. Second, it was the Spanish Inquisition the one not allowed to tortured people (or, at least, not draw blood during it) while the Italian Inquisition was allowed by the Pope itself. Seriously, What the heck man? this is history research 101 about the Spanish Inquisition.
+nachoolo that means the Spanish killed much more and at a higher rate than the Japanese, if the Catholic Church's martyr numbers are to be the limit. It is extraordinarily comparable. The comments on torture spoke nothing of drawing blood, and the they still stands unchallenged by this. I'm surprised by the defense of such an institution, especially since the statement still holds true
+The Cynical Historian more than the defense of the isntitution, what I'm trying to do is an opposition to an exageration of what they did. I'm atheist I'm completly aggainst any Inquisition, don't care it origins, but that doesn't mean that the damage that they did must be exagerated. Besides, shouldn't be the 15,000 rebels killed also count, as the reason why they rebeled was the Inquisition? of course, then the numbers on the Spanish Inquisiton will also go up, but it doubt that they will go that high.
+nachoolo if that counted them one would have to include the Dutch Revolt and possibly even the Thirty Years War in the total, let alone things like the numbers Amerindian revolts that killed untold numbers, well beyond the realm of possibility in Japan. If you simply count the number dead because of religious persecution propagated be the Habsburg dynasty, the number is unimaginably higher than the victims of Shogunate propagated Japanese persecution (and that includes all shoguns from Minimoto no Yoritomo in the 12th century). If anything i exaggerated the Japanese atrocities in comparison to Spain and Portugal. It is actually a very apt comparison, which you will find many historians (including Boxer) doing so.
But neather the Ducht Revolt and the Thirty Years war were directly caused by the Spanish Inquisition, While the rebellion in Japan was. Besides, Im only talking about the Spanish Inquisition, while the Dutch Inquisition was the one operating in the Netherlands, and the Thirty Years Wars was more link to the intolerance of both religious groups to the other, not only because of the Inquisition. The Ameridian revolts are linked more to the force labor that the Spaniards put them (althouth, I need to point out, that not all Amerindian groups were force to work and not all force labour were equal in brutality (there's a huge difference between force labour in a farm, and force labour in a silver mine)) than to religious conversion.
+nachoolo true, though it was the imposition of the Dutch Inquisition by the Habsburgs that was the key igniting event (so not exactly separate). But you see how dithering on the linked death tolls doesn't really apply to the comparison at hand
Scorcese, it seems, failed twice. His movie is considered too pious by irreligious people, while it is too secular for religious ones. I mean, I know the Japanese Christian community and there are families who kept their faith throughout the whole Tokugawa shogunate (so-called Kakkure Kirishitan, or Hidden Christians); and they are really offended by the movie, because it basically devalues the suffering of their ancestors. Like, all this shit with "faith deep in heart" goes right into the face of those who chose to die horribly but not abjure their faith. (Also, imo, the whole sequence with "they die for you" stinks with victim blaming. No, he doesn't kill them; no, he has no moral duty to abjure his faith. One of the things Endo's novel made clear: Rodriguez was NOT righteous in that moment. It WAS his fall. The question was, whether it was a finale or there was anything more for him.)
I agree on the two main points you made. The movie must be watched from the japanese point of view, not only historical, but cultural in general. And of course, not putting into words things that can easily be shown. The movie in general is quite good, not boring at all, especially if you skip that unnecesary ending.
While I am also irreligious myself (I am not in any way anti-religion, at least not anti-Christian, I am quite critical of Islam for it's harsh conservatism though), I enjoyed this movie very much. I might be a bit biased because I love Scorsese but there are a couple of his movies I didn't like so make of that what you will. Anyways I don't think piety is a prerequisite for this movie, although I do understand why someone might find it boring. As for the final scene, I don't have a problem with it, there is a reason why Scorsese placed his own opinion on the matter with the very last scene of the film.
Don't get what you mean about spoon feeding religion, I'm a pretty agnostic guy and the themes resonated with me fine, it wasn't fedora tipping anti God, nor was it particularly a happy clappy ned Flanders pic or a particularly orthodox Christian film....the main character was clearly depicted as a very flawed narcissist with a holy then thou complex comparing himself to christ, The Japanese inquisitors were very much depicted as men doing what is necessary to defend their culture (the thing they value) from creeping subversion instead of simple 2 dimensional bad guys, the only true heros in the film were the Japanese Christians who suffered greatly for a genuin belief and duty to hold on to their faith....it is kinda funny to see the fedora atheists and ned Flanders types feel a strong repulsion to this film...perhaps because it speaks to something we are all uncomfortable with because we don't truly know.
A few things 1. As a fan of movies appealing to the box office is always a bad argument my guy. 2. The point of hearing the prayers is to emphasize the silence and the struggle of the priest 3. The ending criticism is valid but it speaks volumes to a semi religious person like myself and raises important questions about faith which leads to 4. The two main characters aren’t real and while Scorsese doesn’t throw history out the window his movies aren’t about history they are pretty well defined themes. His movies usually take interesting real life stories and twist a few things to help deliver a story with a theme. Movies like the good fellas, casino, and the Irishman are guilty of this too but I suppose as a historian it’s your job to to detest that
wdcain1 This movie doesn't matter if you are religious or a Christian or not. In response to you mentioning that it made you question your own potential actions in a hypothetical future, I just wanted to comment and say that I had my own experience when the lives of my loved ones were once at stake as well as mine. I was without any faith, as I was lost and although I am not lost anymore I am still not a believer of any doctrine written by another than what I have written for myself. But what I was going to say, is that there was a point, when I could not rationalize anything but suicide. It was the only answer for me, because it has always been impossible for me to believe what is to me lacking in quite a bit of hard evidence. So I was lost and disillusioned, as my life had been pulled out from beneath me like a rug, and the choice I had became whether or not I would continue suffering what was unbearable, having a wretched existence that could not justify itself in any way whatsoever. Then I realized the people that my death would affect. I realized that my parents would be totally fucked in the head more than they are already if I killed myself, and then my younger siblings, not only having to deal with that on their own would have to be raised also by those parents that I practically sought vengeance on for having brought me into this world. Therefore I had to weigh my suffering against my two younger siblings' and what suffering I would cause them, as well as perhaps my family outside of my home, my cousin and some other acquaintances. After weighing what was to me, an unbearable illusory waste, against the waste that I would have inflicted on others, I decided in the end that my life was not my own to take. It was a life that was more the people's than my own. And so that is what I live with, and the question of faith is not one of god for me, but of whether or not I may continue to have faith that through my suffering I will benefit my neighbors and multiply what is love rather than that cycle which I was sucked into that is suffering. This is now where I find the meaning in my life. It is in my neighbors, for they are all that I am now that I am not my own.
I'm glad that you conceded your metaphysical bias here because mistaking a priest praying outloud for an internal monologue and therefore a violation of "show don't tell" is like criticising "The King's Speech" for being too much about oratory because you have no interest in rhetoric, "The Imitation Game" for having too much code breaking, "Sherlock Holmes" just being about detecting clues, or "Analyze This" having too much psychologizing. In some procedural or humanities-based genres, telling is showing. Wow, I managed to make this point without referencing Speech Act theory. 😊
13:28 One of the biggest points of the movie hinges on the self conscious doubts of the believer that when he interacts with God, all he might be receiving in return is silence. Therefor the scenes of inner monologue are essential to make that very important concept.
The ''Ch'' in Chiara is pronounced like the ''C'' in Catholic or Christianity. It's funny that you were unsure about Ferreira, which you actually ended up pronouncing correctly, but you utterly butchered Chiara without giving it any second thoughts :)
I suppose Ben Hur has multi-minute long introspection monologues with no visual accents? You might need to re-watch it if you think these are in any way compareable. The closest that comes to is the rowing part, but there's something happening visually. And it isn't introspection, it's descriptive. But thanks for giving me a prime example of how people can't handle criticism of their films. This will be useful for an upcoming lecture
Ben hurr felt slower and definitely more pious is my point. No need to take it as a personal insult nor as my personal defense of an unquestionably loved film.
This film is a great example of the absurdity of religion. To believe that, above all other religions and cultures, that it has the right to infiltrate traditions which have stood the test of time. I'm not saying that people deserved to die, but no one can blame Japan for taking harsh steps against those who sought to remove and destroy its culture and religion. This has happened as recently within the last 10-years with Christian missionaries trying to convert people in primarily Islamic countries. These missionaries also met the same fate of torture and murder because Islamic protectors felt threatened by outside religious influences. Again, something I don't condone, but understand. Religion needs to stay in its lane and respect cultures and religions in other parts of the world.
Oppression is always sad, but looking at what usually happened to countries Europe tried to convert, I can... kind of see Japan's point. Doesn't make it right, there's no excuse for torture and murder, just that the fears weren't entirely unwarranted.
Serina Sanchez Honestly, Japan's point seems kind of similar to modern worries some of us Westerners hold about Islamic migrants over running Europe. I myself am not part of that crowd, for the most part, and of course I detest the fact that some suggest a "Final Solution" when it comes to Muslims, but I thought it was an interesting note
So there's only a final solution or paying for them to stay? I don't think there's hardly a comparison nor did it necessarily mean Europe approved of those actions. Christopher Columbus was hated for killing and enslaving the natives; at the end of his career his power was ruined. Also, they are not just Muslims my friend; some are Orthodox Christians whom I would love to stay in America. However they are coming from a war zone that preaches hate towards Europe and the West it is quite obvious given their executions and fighting Moderate Muslims like Turkey. Does this mean all refugees are radicals? No, but their source requires additional screening. How can you give that ignorant extreme given the fact that so many people have died; what is the point of your emotional appeal if there is a greater one on the opposing side which seeks only to restrict immigration for the safety of everyone including the lives of the refugees that come. Again you are just trying to make false dichotomy of two radicals with yours being the correct. Even if you did not say that you were in support of immigration, the only logical radical of "kill them all" is "welcome them all". The vast majority of the modern west will never persecute Muslims, even the bulldog preachers in America have little bite to their bark; and a lot of the incidents that do happen to Muslims receive a lot of attention (which I agree with since it is a legitimate hatecrime) and disdain for the people that committed the crime.
cfroi08 I'll be honest. What you say is true. It wasn't the most accurate comparison, and a far more suitable comparison would have been either the Inquisitions in Europe at the time or the Red Scare. Instead, I didn't think, and I just went with the first thing that popped into my head. To make it worse, I didn't think about how what I said could be taken, and I didn't think to make what I was saying as clear as possible. For example, "not a part of that crowd". I was most definitely out of brain juice when I wrote that, as I never clarified that statement, and the whole comment just sounds like I'm politicizing history. In short, thank you for, rather rightly, calling me out on being an idiotic asshole who was clearly not thinking when they wrote something. It helps me to keep in mind that I can't afford to go with what pops up at the top of my head, and that the things I say have consequences
Thank you for the civilized reply. Conversations about these things do not need to resort to name calling or committing hate crimes. The truth is war is terrible and I'm glad these refugees have the option to leave. War is terrible. Honestly your comment was not bad just a few hiccups. English can be an awful language at times. Peace
Then those missionaries turned right around and murdered as much of the Native population as possible. While making damn sure they got their 'tithe' in stolen Gold and Silver.
I was raised in an evangelical Christian sect, and for a long time I didn't realize there was a distinction between the words evangelizing and proselytizing. I though they both meant non-coercive persuasion to convert, because how can conversion exist if it is not a continuing, willing choice? Then, as an adult, someone asked me point blank, "Why does your sect proselytize?" I talked about why we evangelize, and pointed to St. John the Evangelist's example. Only then did someone, for the first time, explain to me that proselytizing (at least in this context) means forcible conversion. That concept is just insane to me, still, to this day. But it's kind of a huge thing in history.
Regarding the difference in perspective between the Portuguese missionaries and others (especially Italians), there was a Orient Patronage (Padroado do Oriente), which was essentialy a monopoly of missionary rights in vast areas of the 'East Indies', which the Portuguese held on to dearly as a part of their power structure there, directed from Goa. This led to bitter problems between Portuguese and other catholic missionaries.
Hmm, so maybe Hideyoshi was influenced by Catholic infighting as well? None of the three historians I read talked about that, but I could see it being a factor
I read this in Charles Boxer. It points very much to a centralised missionary network, in Asia controlled by the Portuguese, as much as religious as political. Most missionaries had to work there under the Padroado, if they wanted to work at all. When I watched the movie, I had that impression very vividly with the scenes in Macau, which represented that centralised seat of religious power. There's a certain comparison, I think, between the individual missionary (with his personal conflicts) and the 'powers that be', both in Macau, as well in Japan, with the inquisition.
I am surprised so many people found this movie Boring I mean sure it could've been cut down a little but I thought it was super entertaining and funny enough I feel this movie and Fallout New Vegas character of Joshua Graham (my favorite written character in any piece of media) do a very good Job at showing a nauance look at faith and redemption. I'm not a super religious guy but this movie had me engrossed the whole way through.
I immensely enjoyed this film despite its lackluster of being a blockbuster. If Silence was released around Martin Scorcese’s other controversial film, The Last Temptation of Christ, came out, it probably would have been just as sensational as that film stir the American audiences.
It looks boring! It looks way to serious, which for a movie is boring. But I appreciate the historical context. I did not know about this part of history
Some very interesting stuff there but I wholeheartedly disagree that the movie was boring. I'm an atheist and I found that movie fascinating, if it were shorter I'd probably not have been as understanding of Rodriguez's faith and his moral challenges until the end.
Honestly, other then Josh Keefe, I dont think anyone else does a better job with the review of the movie as most people who review this movie seem to only look at the surface level things and the religion instead of looking into why Japan did the things they did as this is a movie is about an event that actually happened, or what this movie might actually be trying to point at.
A slight note, I don't think Hideyoshi had any contact with the Dutch. He was certainly aware of the going ons in the Philipines and other parts of the Spanish Empire, but I think the first Dutch/British contacts were done with Ieyasu after Hideyoshi's death. He certainly must not have been happy to find out that while the Portuguese and Spanish were acting in behalf of different crowns those crowns belonged to the same man.
My twin told me about this movie we both watched and thoroughly enjoyed it. I would recommend if u like history in general a topic not covered much generally in the west.
After careful consideration of all the facts presented in your video, I can't help but wonder often as to why is it that historians (such as yourself), rarely ever dive deep into the reasons why the Spanish/ Portuguese/ Italian/ Roman Inquisition happened. Have you or your colleagues ever considered that Southern European Christians were, with good reason, terrified of the return of the invading Muslims which harassed Spain for 800 years! What has this to do with xenophobic Arabic nations, well remember McCarthyism? The Church and the State (which were together), for most of the Middle Ages had to deal with ever-encroaching armies form Arabia; if there was religious dissent there was a real fear of it getting out of hand (30 Year's War much). If your nation borders a hostile nation the priority is to have security and people in line. I am not in favour of such actions myself but the reality is clear; if there was religious instability these countries would risk a spillover of conflict and Muslim nations might have attacked then. Take for example Russia taking advantage of Ukraine while they were destabilized by invading Crimea. Crimea had a population of dissenters that liked Russia, and as a result allied with Russia. You have said so yourself: "we shouldn't judge people of the past with our current values (paraphrasing)." Historians looking into this period should remind the reader and the audience that it was quite possible that the Inquisition might have been a reactionary organization. A terrible one for sure, don't misunderstand my critique; by not laying out the whole picture, readers such as myself will continue to misconstrue Iberian/ Southern European history. At the risk of sounding like a U.S.A Southerner: Northern Europeans have for the last 200 years, mis-characterized and chastised Southern European history, and historians should do more to raise awareness of such a phenomenon from this case and others.
Well, samurai are no longer around but the Catholics are still in Japan even if a tiny percentage of the population and one of their national treasures is the Oura Church.
Uh, not the same. The memory of samurai is still very strong there. Kenjustu and other martial arts the samurai practiced are still widespread. Far more than catholicism.
Cynucal Historian: first time I hear the Jesuits had anything to do with the Inquisition. In the Spanish possessions abroad it was the Dominicans who administered the Inquisition.
Pimp Logic mentioned flags of fathers in my good BoaTS episode. Been thinking about Schindler's list. It'd give me a chance to speak on that genocide. But you know the bigots would food that comments section
Ferreira is a difficult name. Maybe you can actually find some of these names in sports commentaries. Seems silly, but since most commentators are given express instruction on the proper pronunciation of a name, you may well find the proper pronunciation if you just search youtube for the name and some sports key words. I tried two (soccer, scores) and found this: czcams.com/video/-atxNwkZQTo/video.html. For "native" language pronunciation, I also found three versions of pronunciation on this channel: czcams.com/users/ThePronounceNames I hope these things help make it easier when struggling with foreign names next time. I know we can't expect you to know every language, so we won't nitpick. This might just be a helpful resource. Also, nice inclusion of The Message as a well done religious-historic film. It's a classic and I'm glad to see it mentioned as a good movie outside of the Muslim community.
+Yaseen Andrewsen is heard it said there different ways, yet somehow failed to say it like any of them during recording. But yeah, that's why i through the name up with the proper accent marks, because butchering names is going to happen. I speak some German, yet i butcher those names too. I'm an equal opportunity name mispronouncer
Experience tells me, if a critic hated it and tore it apart, I'll love it. Only 2 completely useless professions in the world. Meteorologists and critics.
I can only agree that you were not exactly the target audience... Outside of Hollywood and mainstream cinema, most movies are not meant for general audiences.
I understood the issues of Japan and the Padres. The Shoguns ( leaders thru military or Klans) saw in The Padres as an outside influence of same level as Shogun as the people who turned Christian was giving their Loyalty and Obedience as they would to their Shoguns. And also a few Padres were not all good as some were tainted as bad priest which took Shoguns to deny this form of living and deem Padres as a threat to their own status of Shogun and could not let their people follow a foreign entity who was out to take over Japan leaving no place for the Shogun s way of life which was far too much for the Japanese to let Christianity flow thru their traditional life of rank and classes. Nothing to do with Faith but a threat to the present Shogun s rule over the people. Great movie and I saw real intentions from Shogun s plans to rid the Padres and Christianity..
I don't know where else to ask, but: Would you be interested in covering a 3-part German movie series called "Generation War" (Unsere Mütter, unsere Väter)? It seems to be very controversial, even in historian circles concerning its accuracy and the portrayal of several parties of the war.
Religious context would be important to have too the very fact that they are afraid to deface a talisman of Jesus is contradictory of the faith itself "worship no graven image"
It'd be fun to see some Japanese outlander do the famous, "I give you these 30... *Drop* Te.. Ten commandments!" I don't know, that's just what I want. :)
Its only boring if you dont give it a chance. The movie is supposed to feel painful and slow in order to mirror the torture of the priests. This guy knows a lot about history but he really doesnt understand filmmaking all that much. If you go into it looking for a slow, meaningful religious experience, then its insanely enjoyable, but if youre looking for a historical thriller, you simply wont enjoy it
I did find it too dull to watch, even if the actors and the cinematography is fine. And I have read the book. Read the book, it is more... enjoyable? Hardly the word given the subject matter, but more interesting in any case.
Oh man, your portuguese is terrible, lol.But as always great content, really informative and entertaining as usual. I just wish the movie were half as entertaining, that way I wouldnt had forgotten I had seen it. It had some good performances but it really was slow and bloated.Anyway, great work.
I think I understand his criticism. I mean I liked the movie but it is unnecessarily long and it does drag in places. I can be honest and say a few times I was a little bored but I was fine with most of it. Not my favorite Scorsese movie but it was alright and Garfield is absolutely incredible
This movie is a masterpiece. I had no idea of Japan's successful stamping out of Christianity prior to watching the movie, and later looked it up in a book about Japanese history, after which my admiration for the Japanese went through the roof. Toyotomi Hideyoshi may have gone insane, but his successful preservation of Japanese culture is to be commended.
I wonder if part of the reason that the film didn't do well is because it showed the Japanese, a minority in the U.S. as the bad guy and the Christian monks as the victims. Christianity isn't exactly very popular in Hollywood or most of the media these days. I would like to know how many critics cringed at a minority doing this to a group of people they dont exactly agree with.
This is baffling. Christianity is strong in the US and many critics, including non-religious ones, loved this movie? Do you just love making up bullshit to justify your oppression fetish? Sorery, but Christians aren't suppressed here. If anything they suppress the speech of other groups.
Don't tell THE Martin Scorsese how to make a better film, just stick with what you're actually good at. I mean come on, "the cardinal sin of filmmaking?" GTFO.
You cut your own review off at the knees by inserting comedy clips from Monty Python and Mel Brooks into it. Otherwise your review would have a more serious tone to it. As a millennial I'm sure you don't like Christians, Christianity is definitely on the outs with your generation. Nevertheless this film review could've been much better if you had cut out the comedy and just let the serious tone remain. I suggest you cut out the comedy clips and stick with just the review.
NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition: with our two chief weapons: fear and surprise and ruthless efficiency - three, our three chief weapons... oh bugger let us go out and start again.
Nope, I didnt find it boring at all. I think it was really important to hear him grapple with his choices and seeking guidance within himself. I thought it as a great movie. And was riveted all the way. I think it was a movie about the differences between faith and blind faith.
Boring? I was fascinated by this film, watching Andrew Garfield's character start out at a 10 before finally bottoming out at a 1. It even made me think what I would have done if I was in that position and my loved ones or strangers were suffering. But then I'm coming at this from the prospective of a religious person which isn't how you saw it. It's good to get different viewpoints.
Gné. I saw Liam Nesson kicking no arses thorughout the movie. That just was it for it for me ^^
I completely agree with you even as an Atheist :)
wdcain1
This movie doesn't matter if you are religious or a Christian or not.
In response to you mentioning that it made you question your own potential actions in a hypothetical future, I just wanted to comment and say that I had my own experience when the lives of my loved ones were once at stake as well as mine. I was without any faith, as I was lost and although I am not lost anymore I am still not a believer of any doctrine written by another than what I have written for myself. But what I was going to say, is that there was a point, when I could not rationalize anything but suicide. It was the only answer for me, because it has always been impossible for me to believe what is to me lacking in quite a bit of hard evidence. So I was lost and disillusioned, as my life had been pulled out from beneath me like a rug, and the choice I had became whether or not I would continue suffering what was unbearable, having a wretched existence that could not justify itself in any way whatsoever. Then I realized the people that my death would affect. I realized that my parents would be totally fucked in the head more than they are already if I killed myself, and then my younger siblings, not only having to deal with that on their own would have to be raised also by those parents that I practically sought vengeance on for having brought me into this world. Therefore I had to weigh my suffering against my two younger siblings' and what suffering I would cause them, as well as perhaps my family outside of my home, my cousin and some other acquaintances.
After weighing what was to me, an unbearable illusory waste, against the waste that I would have inflicted on others, I decided in the end that my life was not my own to take. It was a life that was more the people's than my own. And so that is what I live with, and the question of faith is not one of god for me, but of whether or not I may continue to have faith that through my suffering I will benefit my neighbors and multiply what is love rather than that cycle which I was sucked into that is suffering. This is now where I find the meaning in my life. It is in my neighbors, for they are all that I am now that I am not my own.
Scorsese is one of best directors of all time no doubt!! This movie stunk. It's very hard to make historical religious movie If you're not agnostic or at least have nothing to do with the religion of the movie.( Spielberg made a 4hr black&white 18*⭐ film about the holocaust.)He makes the best gangster movies unchallenged. He did make Cape fear which was awesome as well ass Shutter island and Wolf of Wall Street, Great too. If you're a Boomer the holy Trinity is Mean Street's ,Taxi Driver, Raging bull If you're older Millennial /young genX Casino, Goodfella's, Departed. The Last scene sadly Improbable...but He put what he wished happened.... No worries I'm still Is a huge fan He wrote &signed a question I had for him when he was a guest teacher at my ex's film school. I never met him but my X Gave me an awesome Xmas present made a collage out of it really cool
this movie is amazing, other people could not appreciate it because they delude themselves that their truths are not based on faith also.
For so much of our lives are dictated by "falsities" that are made manifest by belief; show me in nature an atom of honor, duty, mercy, grace, piety, etc... none of that is naturalistic, all of that are artifice, yet it is made real through belief which in turn leads to practice and observance.
Now, it is becoming more apparent that as we pass through this age, we are called to worship the gods of modernity, hedonism, debauchery, degeneracy, the senseless search of sensation, and of myopic materialism.
One of Martin Scorcese's hidden gems. One of the best moments of the film was when Andrew Garfield's character finally comes into contact with Liam Neeson's character, who explains to him the that the reason why Christianity fails to take root in Japan is because the prevailing culture and philosophy can't conceptualize anything beyond Man and Nature. When Christian missionaries mention the 'Son of God', the Japanese faithful interpret it as the Sun of 'God'.
But the Jesuit Francis Xavier is responsible for the Goa Inquisition which lasted for 300 years in Goa, India by torturing and executing many innocent lives from Hindus to Jews, Muslims, Buddhist and non-Catholic Christians who refused to convert to a corrupt religious organization of Roman Catholicism.
"Sun of 'God'"
This doesn't really make sense. Why would the Japanes confuse Son and Sun?, they don't speak English so the two words shouldn't be related.
The thing is that it sort of did take root in Japan. So much so that there was a Christian rebellion in the south of the country.
@@ikengaspirit3063 The ancient Japanese god is Amaterasu, the embodiment of the sun, and is still worshiped today.
Also, the Dainichi that appears in the movie refers to the great sun. This is a Buddhist term. Many gods are worshiped in Japan, but the highest one is the sun.
@@lm3spiderThat’s cool and makes a lot of sense
Actually, the Jesuits and the Inquisition where two indenpendent institutions, so much so, that it wouldn't be inconceivable that a Portuguese jesuist priest would be against the inquisitions, in fact, the most famous jesuist priest here in Portugal (he was born in Brazil though, around the time of the setting of this film), Father António Vieira was in favour of coverting non-Christians like African and Native peoples by a peaceiful and comprehensive dialogue with them. (I also end up being persecuted by the Inquision)
You have also to take note that here in Portugal, the Jesuit order was expelled by the inquisition too...
There were Jesuits who held positions in the hierarchy of both Portugese and Spanish inquisitions. Much more importantly, they created inquisitions themselves under Spanish and Portugese rule abroad. To name a few created by Jesuits: Goa, Brazil, and New Spain. So while they were separate institutions, so was the Roman curia and Italian Inquisition, but they are also inseparable as actual people.
So what, there were inpendent from each still, so much so that they competed with each for having power both inside the the Iberian Peninsula and in their colonies abroad, thats why they were expelled from Portugal in 1759, so that the Prime Minister at that time could at same time centrelise his power in Portugal, and also take care of the Indians of Brazil, since they previously under the "protection" from Spanish Jesuit priests, you can see this in that famous movie from 80's, "The Mission", with Robert De Niro having the role of the protagonist.
Btw I think that movie could be a very interesting one for the next "Based on a True Story" series...
+Rafael Melo there's actually a lot of argument over why the Jesuits were expelled. I don't really think there is a consensus POV on it. The Spanish also expelled them from their empire in 1769. Some say it was for greater taxes to go to the crown after the 7 years war. Others say it was a steady change in theology. Many further argue it was to secularize certain parts of governance. It's definitely an open question.
I don't see how their expulsion a century later connects to their status during the Iberian Union period though. How would you connect that?
Bro, if you think I want to see 18th Century propaganda on CZcams... well, actually, I do. It's hilarious. Keep up with the good work, Martin Luther.
Rafael Melo I agree with you, for example in new Spain (Mexico) while there were Jesuits only the Dominics were allowed to participate in the Inquisition
Well that's unfortunate. I really don't understand how someone could be bored by this film. It was a moving portrait of jesuits and asked interesting questions about faith. Too bad. I loved it.
For the same reason people got bored by the movie Alexander : "get on with it !" XD
not only Jesuits.. the same applies to the NATIVE AMERICANS who were forced to convert to Catholicism. There is also the movie LA OTRA CONQUISTA(The other Conquest) which delves into the same issues the Aztec/Mexica had when the Catholics were burning Mexican(Animist)people who did not convert.
He said he's irreligious. I just think he isn't the target audience
@Deb Harris well i don't believe in god ! that must be why i have no patience...
Zacharie Guillerey denial of the existence of God doesn’t mean you are completely absent of virtue... the Catholics don’t believe that at least but I only studied Catholicism Islam and eastern religion I can’t speak for Protestantism or Judaism
Hes not making a conspiracy theory, hes giving the movie a conclusion. Cut to black as he burns? Go back and rewatch that scene, it would have been an INSANELY unsatisfying conclusion. This ending gave it an inspiring uptick at the end, that was about Scorcese's personal battles with religion, finding hope hidden in silence, never mentioned, beneath what appears to be defeat.
The reason this movie is slow is because its supposed to be a very grueling protrayal of loss of faith and struggle. I think youre right in saying that the reason you didnt connect with this movie at all is because, as you said, youre not religious, and it seems that you dont really have too much empathy for spiritual.experience either. Either way you just didnt get this movie. I appreciate the history, but I think you should give deeper thought to a films actual meaning before you dismiss it as boring.
Its creatin' a conspiracy by havin' us believe that those who were Buddhist had been quietly keepin' secret chants for christian values. This would leave many into believing its entire bull without second guessin'. History films, if done poorly, could effect the mind set into falsely followin' nonsense that even parents would say its unsuitable.
Silence was not based on a true story, rather than a novel inspired in the Portuguese presence in Japan, but it's a fictitious story.
If you want to learn about it, search for Luis Frois.
Perhaps the real reason this movie bombed was because almost nobody had heard of it
I saw it pop up in discussion groups and history outlets, but then again I don't really watch live TV. I was kinda excited about it, given the subject. But then again, the history field really can be a bunch of nerds hiding away in libraries, LOL. Was it not shown with ads and whatnot?
This is the first I've ever heard of it
DO PEOPLE HERE OF A MOVIE B 4 IT COMES OUT?
This movie was extremely interesting and not boring in the slightest. I'm kinda surprised you would even think that. But I guess everyone is different.
historical movies are usually not everybodys cup of tea.. I find the movie absolutely fascinating and educational
I cried at the end when Jesus spoke to him and said he could step on his idol. It’s a beautiful scene.
One interesting side note is that the Japanese Inquisition is, unintentionally, responsible for our current day understanding of the spread of popular literacy in early modern Japan. Villagers were often made to sign a register at their local Buddhist temples to affirm that they were not Christians. Of course, most villagers at this time were illiterate, and so signed the register with a dot instead of using kana. But as time goes on and literacy spreads to the peasant caste, we start to see a gradual increase in the number of people signing with kana or in the cases of some provincial literati, signing with Ka-O (simplified signature using radicals from kanji). There's a book on the subject, Popular Literacy in Early Modern Japan, by Richard Rubinger. It's of particular interest, especially if you have a knowledge of how European popular literacy spread and you wanted to compare and contrast.
As a brazilian, let me help you with the name Ferreira:
Fe(they way you were saying is right)
rrei = hey
ra = ra
(basically double r's in the middle of a word have the H sound in english)
Also Cristóvão
Cris = krees
tó = to as in "todd"
vão = somewhat like "vawn"
*flies away*
Boa ,mandaste bem ,cuntos de Portugal
I would expect an Iberian Jesuit being all offended at the Japanese Inquisition. It's easy to not notice your hypocrisy when you're passionate enough about whatever you're arguing, it is quite easy to provoke passionate emotional responses when one's religion is threatened. Zealots throughout history have objected to atrocities (allegedly) committed by heathens, before ordering similar atrocities to take place on said heathens. This isn't even restricted to the past, either; note the parallels between the most militant, zealous, and loony Muslims in the Middle East and their counterparts in the USA.
Of course, none of this is intentional. But if it was, and if the characters recognized it, it might have helped support/create some neat internal conflict. You know, "is there any difference between the religions" or something like that.
+Timothy McLean good point! Sometimes historians, including myself, give too much agency to historical characters. And it is important to point out that people's motivations and principles are always confused in the moment of action. Jesuits were nothing if not hypocritical about their activities at home and abroad. Still gives me a good hard laugh. If we are going to be subjected to this lengthy inner monologue though, it would've been nice to get that last question you said. Would've made for a more morally ambiguous story
Interesting break down of one of my favorite books and movies. I agree with your thoughts on the ending. It wasn't in the book and the ambiguity of Endo Shusaku causes much more discussion and thought.
Quick correction: Of the 26 (3:16) put to death only 6 were foreign missionaries and of the 20 Japanese put to death in that group 3 were boys under the age of 14. They were arrested in Kyoto and were walked to Nagasaki after having their ears and/or noses cut off
Thoughts: The Japanese rulers quickly realized that execution was not a deterrent for the Christian believers and changed to humiliation of apostasy and fumi-e. Fumi-e has a massive psychological weight. I have been to a tiny museum outside Nagasaki that has relics of the Hidden Christians one of which was the prayer they would say in reparation after stepping on the fumi-e year after year for 250 years. In fact I am more taken with the centuries long fortitude of the Hidden Christians holding onto their faith under fear of death. The story of Urakami Christians in 1858 is amazing.
Aside: The main character of the book and the "autobiographical" character of Silence was Kikijiro. Everyone misses that.
I'm sorry you didn't like this movie, I for one loved it! Have you read the book? Are there any other books or films featuring Europeans in Japan during this time period?
I did not read the book, just summaries - if it's fictional, I almost never read the book the movie is based on. Read 3 books for this anyways, so best not to add superfluous reading. The only one I can remember doing so was _300,_ and that was b/c the comic is kinda fun.
Boxer (in the description) is a good read though, maybe a bit too theological at points for my tastes, but good nonetheless. There's plenty of history books on European contact during the Sengoku Period, but I can't really think of anything that isn't Japanese anime (none are good historically speaking, but what do you expect from anime). Even Japanese films don't really cover the subject, to my knowledge, but then again, I've only really seen "the classics" of Japanese cinema.
Why? The novel has no bearing on the truth it is based on, nor the criticism of the film. Whether it is adapted from a novel or not does not change the final product. One does not need to read the basis in order appreciate the product; so why is it any different to criticize?
Greeklings Not during this time period but close enough would be en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh%C5%8Dgun_(miniseries)
Film is different from book. Thus translating one to the other does not mean all the words should be included, but rather than words should be made to pictures - nor is anyone forced to adapt a book into film in some exact transliteration. And the book as it happens manages to be less boring.
Lolwut? He';s reviewing the movie not the book wtf. Did you not see what he actually said about the movie itself?
Today's movies are all about action. Something always has to happen, the plot has to change every few minutes and keep you interested, just like our smartphones and reality shows do. But that's why I love this movie. Plenty of action, yes, but also so many moments of thoughts, deep thinking , reflection and even just silence (yes I know , I wrote the name of the film). No need of doing anything. Just lisen, wonder and wander in your own thoughts alongside with the characters. You might find it boring. I find it extremely fascinating and personal, almost like reading a book!
I wasn’t bored for one second during Silence. I expected it to be boring but I watched the entire movie in two sessions over two days.
Okay, on the Spanish Inquisition part.
The numer of people killed was between 3000 and 5000.
It might look high, but let's remember that the number of people trialed by them was 125,000, so the pertentage of people executed was low.
Second, it was the Spanish Inquisition the one not allowed to tortured people (or, at least, not draw blood during it) while the Italian Inquisition was allowed by the Pope itself.
Seriously, What the heck man? this is history research 101 about the Spanish Inquisition.
+nachoolo that means the Spanish killed much more and at a higher rate than the Japanese, if the Catholic Church's martyr numbers are to be the limit. It is extraordinarily comparable. The comments on torture spoke nothing of drawing blood, and the they still stands unchallenged by this. I'm surprised by the defense of such an institution, especially since the statement still holds true
+The Cynical Historian more than the defense of the isntitution, what I'm trying to do is an opposition to an exageration of what they did.
I'm atheist I'm completly aggainst any Inquisition, don't care it origins, but that doesn't mean that the damage that they did must be exagerated.
Besides, shouldn't be the 15,000 rebels killed also count, as the reason why they rebeled was the Inquisition?
of course, then the numbers on the Spanish Inquisiton will also go up, but it doubt that they will go that high.
+nachoolo if that counted them one would have to include the Dutch Revolt and possibly even the Thirty Years War in the total, let alone things like the numbers Amerindian revolts that killed untold numbers, well beyond the realm of possibility in Japan. If you simply count the number dead because of religious persecution propagated be the Habsburg dynasty, the number is unimaginably higher than the victims of Shogunate propagated Japanese persecution (and that includes all shoguns from Minimoto no Yoritomo in the 12th century).
If anything i exaggerated the Japanese atrocities in comparison to Spain and Portugal. It is actually a very apt comparison, which you will find many historians (including Boxer) doing so.
But neather the Ducht Revolt and the Thirty Years war were directly caused by the Spanish Inquisition, While the rebellion in Japan was.
Besides, Im only talking about the Spanish Inquisition, while the Dutch Inquisition was the one operating in the Netherlands, and the Thirty Years Wars was more link to the intolerance of both religious groups to the other, not only because of the Inquisition.
The Ameridian revolts are linked more to the force labor that the Spaniards put them (althouth, I need to point out, that not all Amerindian groups were force to work and not all force labour were equal in brutality (there's a huge difference between force labour in a farm, and force labour in a silver mine)) than to religious conversion.
+nachoolo true, though it was the imposition of the Dutch Inquisition by the Habsburgs that was the key igniting event (so not exactly separate). But you see how dithering on the linked death tolls doesn't really apply to the comparison at hand
Scorcese, it seems, failed twice. His movie is considered too pious by irreligious people, while it is too secular for religious ones.
I mean, I know the Japanese Christian community and there are families who kept their faith throughout the whole Tokugawa shogunate (so-called Kakkure Kirishitan, or Hidden Christians); and they are really offended by the movie, because it basically devalues the suffering of their ancestors. Like, all this shit with "faith deep in heart" goes right into the face of those who chose to die horribly but not abjure their faith.
(Also, imo, the whole sequence with "they die for you" stinks with victim blaming. No, he doesn't kill them; no, he has no moral duty to abjure his faith. One of the things Endo's novel made clear: Rodriguez was NOT righteous in that moment. It WAS his fall. The question was, whether it was a finale or there was anything more for him.)
It would be interesting to see how the Japanese would interpret this story through a film of their own
@@sewaseem there an adaption in the 1970's
Ppl nowadays have no patience for a slow atmpspheric movie, i personaly loved it
It's a good movie. It is thought provoking. The only reason it 'bombed' is because Americans hurt their heads when they try to think too much.
That last line means absolute shit...:D
The movie is great..The movie is not boring,you are boring, go see the movie again....
I agree on the two main points you made. The movie must be watched from the japanese point of view, not only historical, but cultural in general. And of course, not putting into words things that can easily be shown.
The movie in general is quite good, not boring at all, especially if you skip that unnecesary ending.
Man, I always wondered how different the history would've been if Japan had strong Catholic influence, if not become completely Christian :D
It’d be lame
It would be terrible for Christianity to once again insert itself where it doesn't belong
@@normanbraslow7902 It's not ethical, but to them it's justifiable because they're "spreading the good word"
While I am also irreligious myself (I am not in any way anti-religion, at least not anti-Christian, I am quite critical of Islam for it's harsh conservatism though), I enjoyed this movie very much. I might be a bit biased because I love Scorsese but there are a couple of his movies I didn't like so make of that what you will. Anyways I don't think piety is a prerequisite for this movie, although I do understand why someone might find it boring. As for the final scene, I don't have a problem with it, there is a reason why Scorsese placed his own opinion on the matter with the very last scene of the film.
Don't get what you mean about spoon feeding religion, I'm a pretty agnostic guy and the themes resonated with me fine, it wasn't fedora tipping anti God, nor was it particularly a happy clappy ned Flanders pic or a particularly orthodox Christian film....the main character was clearly depicted as a very flawed narcissist with a holy then thou complex comparing himself to christ, The Japanese inquisitors were very much depicted as men doing what is necessary to defend their culture (the thing they value) from creeping subversion instead of simple 2 dimensional bad guys, the only true heros in the film were the Japanese Christians who suffered greatly for a genuin belief and duty to hold on to their faith....it is kinda funny to see the fedora atheists and ned Flanders types feel a strong repulsion to this film...perhaps because it speaks to something we are all uncomfortable with because we don't truly know.
This movie was by no means boring
A few things 1. As a fan of movies appealing to the box office is always a bad argument my guy. 2. The point of hearing the prayers is to emphasize the silence and the struggle of the priest 3. The ending criticism is valid but it speaks volumes to a semi religious person like myself and raises important questions about faith which leads to 4. The two main characters aren’t real and while Scorsese doesn’t throw history out the window his movies aren’t about history they are pretty well defined themes. His movies usually take interesting real life stories and twist a few things to help deliver a story with a theme. Movies like the good fellas, casino, and the Irishman are guilty of this too but I suppose as a historian it’s your job to to detest that
wdcain1
This movie doesn't matter if you are religious or a Christian or not.
In response to you mentioning that it made you question your own potential actions in a hypothetical future, I just wanted to comment and say that I had my own experience when the lives of my loved ones were once at stake as well as mine. I was without any faith, as I was lost and although I am not lost anymore I am still not a believer of any doctrine written by another than what I have written for myself. But what I was going to say, is that there was a point, when I could not rationalize anything but suicide. It was the only answer for me, because it has always been impossible for me to believe what is to me lacking in quite a bit of hard evidence. So I was lost and disillusioned, as my life had been pulled out from beneath me like a rug, and the choice I had became whether or not I would continue suffering what was unbearable, having a wretched existence that could not justify itself in any way whatsoever. Then I realized the people that my death would affect. I realized that my parents would be totally fucked in the head more than they are already if I killed myself, and then my younger siblings, not only having to deal with that on their own would have to be raised also by those parents that I practically sought vengeance on for having brought me into this world. Therefore I had to weigh my suffering against my two younger siblings' and what suffering I would cause them, as well as perhaps my family outside of my home, my cousin and some other acquaintances.
After weighing what was to me, an unbearable illusory waste, against the waste that I would have inflicted on others, I decided in the end that my life was not my own to take. It was a life that was more the people's than my own. And so that is what I live with, and the question of faith is not one of god for me, but of whether or not I may continue to have faith that through my suffering I will benefit my neighbors and multiply what is love rather than that cycle which I was sucked into that is suffering. This is now where I find the meaning in my life. It is in my neighbors, for they are all that I am now that I am not my own.
I'm glad that you conceded your metaphysical bias here because mistaking a priest praying outloud for an internal monologue and therefore a violation of "show don't tell" is like criticising "The King's Speech" for being too much about oratory because you have no interest in rhetoric, "The Imitation Game" for having too much code breaking, "Sherlock Holmes" just being about detecting clues, or "Analyze This" having too much psychologizing. In some procedural or humanities-based genres, telling is showing.
Wow, I managed to make this point without referencing Speech Act theory. 😊
taking a intro to speech class are we?
....wut? 😋
Speech Act is a philosophical category.
13:28 One of the biggest points of the movie hinges on the self conscious doubts of the believer that when he interacts with God, all he might be receiving in return is silence. Therefor the scenes of inner monologue are essential to make that very important concept.
The ''Ch'' in Chiara is pronounced like the ''C'' in Catholic or Christianity. It's funny that you were unsure about Ferreira, which you actually ended up pronouncing correctly, but you utterly butchered Chiara without giving it any second thoughts :)
I'm an agnostic atheist but I didn't find this movie tedious and boring at all.
I suppose you would find the classic films like Ben hurr boring too
I suppose Ben Hur has multi-minute long introspection monologues with no visual accents? You might need to re-watch it if you think these are in any way compareable. The closest that comes to is the rowing part, but there's something happening visually. And it isn't introspection, it's descriptive. But thanks for giving me a prime example of how people can't handle criticism of their films. This will be useful for an upcoming lecture
Ben hurr felt slower and definitely more pious is my point. No need to take it as a personal insult nor as my personal defense of an unquestionably loved film.
This film is a great example of the absurdity of religion. To believe that, above all other religions and cultures, that it has the right to infiltrate traditions which have stood the test of time. I'm not saying that people deserved to die, but no one can blame Japan for taking harsh steps against those who sought to remove and destroy its culture and religion. This has happened as recently within the last 10-years with Christian missionaries trying to convert people in primarily Islamic countries. These missionaries also met the same fate of torture and murder because Islamic protectors felt threatened by outside religious influences. Again, something I don't condone, but understand. Religion needs to stay in its lane and respect cultures and religions in other parts of the world.
I didn’t think it was boring. I though it was brilliant
Although, they could have ended it 30 minutes earlier
Oppression is always sad, but looking at what usually happened to countries Europe tried to convert, I can... kind of see Japan's point. Doesn't make it right, there's no excuse for torture and murder, just that the fears weren't entirely unwarranted.
Serina Sanchez Honestly, Japan's point seems kind of similar to modern worries some of us Westerners hold about Islamic migrants over running Europe.
I myself am not part of that crowd, for the most part, and of course I detest the fact that some suggest a "Final Solution" when it comes to Muslims, but I thought it was an interesting note
So there's only a final solution or paying for them to stay? I don't think there's hardly a comparison nor did it necessarily mean Europe approved of those actions. Christopher Columbus was hated for killing and enslaving the natives; at the end of his career his power was ruined.
Also, they are not just Muslims my friend; some are Orthodox Christians whom I would love to stay in America. However they are coming from a war zone that preaches hate towards Europe and the West it is quite obvious given their executions and fighting Moderate Muslims like Turkey.
Does this mean all refugees are radicals? No, but their source requires additional screening. How can you give that ignorant extreme given the fact that so many people have died; what is the point of your emotional appeal if there is a greater one on the opposing side which seeks only to restrict immigration for the safety of everyone including the lives of the refugees that come.
Again you are just trying to make false dichotomy of two radicals with yours being the correct. Even if you did not say that you were in support of immigration, the only logical radical of "kill them all" is "welcome them all".
The vast majority of the modern west will never persecute Muslims, even the bulldog preachers in America have little bite to their bark; and a lot of the incidents that do happen to Muslims receive a lot of attention (which I agree with since it is a legitimate hatecrime) and disdain for the people that committed the crime.
cfroi08 I'll be honest. What you say is true. It wasn't the most accurate comparison, and a far more suitable comparison would have been either the Inquisitions in Europe at the time or the Red Scare.
Instead, I didn't think, and I just went with the first thing that popped into my head. To make it worse, I didn't think about how what I said could be taken, and I didn't think to make what I was saying as clear as possible.
For example, "not a part of that crowd". I was most definitely out of brain juice when I wrote that, as I never clarified that statement, and the whole comment just sounds like I'm politicizing history.
In short, thank you for, rather rightly, calling me out on being an idiotic asshole who was clearly not thinking when they wrote something. It helps me to keep in mind that I can't afford to go with what pops up at the top of my head, and that the things I say have consequences
Thank you for the civilized reply. Conversations about these things do not need to resort to name calling or committing hate crimes. The truth is war is terrible and I'm glad these refugees have the option to leave. War is terrible. Honestly your comment was not bad just a few hiccups. English can be an awful language at times. Peace
Then those missionaries turned right around and murdered as much of the Native population as possible. While making damn sure they got their 'tithe' in stolen Gold and Silver.
I was raised in an evangelical Christian sect, and for a long time I didn't realize there was a distinction between the words evangelizing and proselytizing. I though they both meant non-coercive persuasion to convert, because how can conversion exist if it is not a continuing, willing choice? Then, as an adult, someone asked me point blank, "Why does your sect proselytize?" I talked about why we evangelize, and pointed to St. John the Evangelist's example. Only then did someone, for the first time, explain to me that proselytizing (at least in this context) means forcible conversion. That concept is just insane to me, still, to this day. But it's kind of a huge thing in history.
Regarding the difference in perspective between the Portuguese missionaries and others (especially Italians), there was a Orient Patronage (Padroado do Oriente), which was essentialy a monopoly of missionary rights in vast areas of the 'East Indies', which the Portuguese held on to dearly as a part of their power structure there, directed from Goa. This led to bitter problems between Portuguese and other catholic missionaries.
As to Cristovão Ferreira, perhaps the old ortography might help: Cristovam (stress in the middle syllable).
Hmm, so maybe Hideyoshi was influenced by Catholic infighting as well? None of the three historians I read talked about that, but I could see it being a factor
I read this in Charles Boxer. It points very much to a centralised missionary network, in Asia controlled by the Portuguese, as much as religious as political. Most missionaries had to work there under the Padroado, if they wanted to work at all. When I watched the movie, I had that impression very vividly with the scenes in Macau, which represented that centralised seat of religious power. There's a certain comparison, I think, between the individual missionary (with his personal conflicts) and the 'powers that be', both in Macau, as well in Japan, with the inquisition.
I am surprised so many people found this movie Boring I mean sure it could've been cut down a little but I thought it was super entertaining and funny enough I feel this movie and Fallout New Vegas character of Joshua Graham (my favorite written character in any piece of media) do a very good Job at showing a nauance look at faith and redemption. I'm not a super religious guy but this movie had me engrossed the whole way through.
I agree with the ending of the movie answering a questions. Although... I loved the movie.
I immensely enjoyed this film despite its lackluster of being a blockbuster. If Silence was released around Martin Scorcese’s other controversial film, The Last Temptation of Christ, came out, it probably would have been just as sensational as that film stir the American audiences.
It looks boring! It looks way to serious, which for a movie is boring. But I appreciate the historical context. I did not know about this part of history
Boring for you perhaps, but a patient and engrossing journey for the rest of us.
I'm pretty sure the irony of nagasaki is only known by historians and I love it
Some very interesting stuff there but I wholeheartedly disagree that the movie was boring. I'm an atheist and I found that movie fascinating, if it were shorter I'd probably not have been as understanding of Rodriguez's faith and his moral challenges until the end.
Honestly, other then Josh Keefe, I dont think anyone else does a better job with the review of the movie as most people who review this movie seem to only look at the surface level things and the religion instead of looking into why Japan did the things they did as this is a movie is about an event that actually happened, or what this movie might actually be trying to point at.
A slight note, I don't think Hideyoshi had any contact with the Dutch. He was certainly aware of the going ons in the Philipines and other parts of the Spanish Empire, but I think the first Dutch/British contacts were done with Ieyasu after Hideyoshi's death. He certainly must not have been happy to find out that while the Portuguese and Spanish were acting in behalf of different crowns those crowns belonged to the same man.
I don't see how anyone could think this movie is boring.
Then its probably not in your software....
My twin told me about this movie we both watched and thoroughly enjoyed it. I would recommend if u like history in general a topic not covered much generally in the west.
One of my favorite movies ever.
After careful consideration of all the facts presented in your video, I can't help but wonder often as to why is it that historians (such as yourself), rarely ever dive deep into the reasons why the Spanish/ Portuguese/ Italian/ Roman Inquisition happened. Have you or your colleagues ever considered that Southern European Christians were, with good reason, terrified of the return of the invading Muslims which harassed Spain for 800 years! What has this to do with xenophobic Arabic nations, well remember McCarthyism? The Church and the State (which were together), for most of the Middle Ages had to deal with ever-encroaching armies form Arabia; if there was religious dissent there was a real fear of it getting out of hand (30 Year's War much). If your nation borders a hostile nation the priority is to have security and people in line. I am not in favour of such actions myself but the reality is clear; if there was religious instability these countries would risk a spillover of conflict and Muslim nations might have attacked then. Take for example Russia taking advantage of Ukraine while they were destabilized by invading Crimea. Crimea had a population of dissenters that liked Russia, and as a result allied with Russia. You have said so yourself: "we shouldn't judge people of the past with our current values (paraphrasing)." Historians looking into this period should remind the reader and the audience that it was quite possible that the Inquisition might have been a reactionary organization. A terrible one for sure, don't misunderstand my critique; by not laying out the whole picture, readers such as myself will continue to misconstrue Iberian/ Southern European history. At the risk of sounding like a U.S.A Southerner: Northern Europeans have for the last 200 years, mis-characterized and chastised Southern European history, and historians should do more to raise awareness of such a phenomenon from this case and others.
Now a historical movie as a Canadian would love to see is either
- the war of 1812
- Dieppe 1942
- vimmy ridge
Just alone for the absolutely stunning cinematography it’s worth many watches
Well, samurai are no longer around but the Catholics are still in Japan even if a tiny percentage of the population and one of their national treasures is the Oura Church.
Uh, not the same. The memory of samurai is still very strong there. Kenjustu and other martial arts the samurai practiced are still widespread. Far more than catholicism.
Cynucal Historian: first time I hear the Jesuits had anything to do with the Inquisition. In the Spanish possessions abroad it was the Dominicans who administered the Inquisition.
I liked the movie, it's heavy but not bad at all. And the Dutch spoken in the end was good for a chance.
I know it is a bit of a weird request but could you do an episode on the movie "A United Kingdom" from 2016
I don't really do love stories, so I wouldn't be able to do much criticism on it
The Cynical Historian oh okay
The Cynical Historian can you do the film MacArthur(1977)
I thought it was great and not boring at all. You have to listen for the silence....
Maybe 127 hours, milk, schindler's list flags of our father?
Pimp Logic mentioned flags of fathers in my good BoaTS episode. Been thinking about Schindler's list. It'd give me a chance to speak on that genocide. But you know the bigots would food that comments section
Sad but true, I still think it would be a very interesting one to do and sure there is much to learn, also maybe get some good views xD btw *flood
The Cynical Historian
Better 'Letters from Iwo Jima'. Or maybe you could make one video on both movies together?
That should never make you afraid to speak your mind, I believe most of your subscriber base is quite civilized.
Kind of like Knowing Better who I noticed you also collaborated with...
Ferreira is a difficult name. Maybe you can actually find some of these names in sports commentaries. Seems silly, but since most commentators are given express instruction on the proper pronunciation of a name, you may well find the proper pronunciation if you just search youtube for the name and some sports key words. I tried two (soccer, scores) and found this: czcams.com/video/-atxNwkZQTo/video.html.
For "native" language pronunciation, I also found three versions of pronunciation on this channel: czcams.com/users/ThePronounceNames
I hope these things help make it easier when struggling with foreign names next time. I know we can't expect you to know every language, so we won't nitpick. This might just be a helpful resource.
Also, nice inclusion of The Message as a well done religious-historic film. It's a classic and I'm glad to see it mentioned as a good movie outside of the Muslim community.
+Yaseen Andrewsen is heard it said there different ways, yet somehow failed to say it like any of them during recording. But yeah, that's why i through the name up with the proper accent marks, because butchering names is going to happen. I speak some German, yet i butcher those names too. I'm an equal opportunity name mispronouncer
Experience tells me, if a critic hated it and tore it apart, I'll love it. Only 2 completely useless professions in the world. Meteorologists and critics.
So you enjoyed Catwoman? Avatar the Last Airbender? Critics hated those. And you evaluate your own weather patterns?
This film was fantastic. Not boring.
I can only agree that you were not exactly the target audience... Outside of Hollywood and mainstream cinema, most movies are not meant for general audiences.
I understood the issues of Japan and the Padres. The Shoguns ( leaders thru military or Klans) saw in The Padres as an outside influence of same level as Shogun as the people who turned Christian was giving their Loyalty and Obedience as they would to their Shoguns. And also a few Padres were not all good as some were tainted as bad priest which took Shoguns to deny this form of living and deem Padres as a threat to their own status of Shogun and could not let their people follow a foreign entity who was out to take over Japan leaving no place for the Shogun s way of life which was far too much for the Japanese to let Christianity flow thru their traditional life of rank and classes. Nothing to do with Faith but a threat to the present Shogun s rule over the people. Great movie and I saw real intentions from Shogun s plans to rid the Padres and Christianity..
@9:04 Italy was united in 1861, not 1871. Maybe you're thinking of the Papal State being annexed in 1870 with Rome becoming Italy's capital in 1871.
Great post. I got a little chill when clip from Ran showed up
TY.
This is really interesting, because I wrote my history IA (Internal Assessment) on this very topic.
I don't know where else to ask, but: Would you be interested in covering a 3-part German movie series called "Generation War" (Unsere Mütter, unsere Väter)? It seems to be very controversial, even in historian circles concerning its accuracy and the portrayal of several parties of the war.
I avoid foreign films in this series
I enjoyed the movie, probably because I watched it in two sittings.
I thought the movie was amazing and this is coming from a stone cold agnostic
I'm confused does "Bombed at the Box office" Mean the film was Hated or loved?
Thanks for this, but I didn't find the movie boring. So sad that it bombed. I need to read the book again.
Religious context would be important to have too the very fact that they are afraid to deface a talisman of Jesus is contradictory of the faith itself "worship no graven image"
It'd be fun to see some Japanese outlander do the famous, "I give you these 30... *Drop* Te.. Ten commandments!" I don't know, that's just what I want. :)
I hadn't heard of this film, but I watched the review anyway. This looks like a snooze fest with occasional nightmares to interrupt your napping
Wisecracking silhouettes of Joel, Tom Servo and Crow in the foreground always make bad movies more watchable.
Its only boring if you dont give it a chance. The movie is supposed to feel painful and slow in order to mirror the torture of the priests. This guy knows a lot about history but he really doesnt understand filmmaking all that much. If you go into it looking for a slow, meaningful religious experience, then its insanely enjoyable, but if youre looking for a historical thriller, you simply wont enjoy it
I did find it too dull to watch, even if the actors and the cinematography is fine. And I have read the book. Read the book, it is more... enjoyable? Hardly the word given the subject matter, but more interesting in any case.
I didnt feel bored by this film. I was hooked from start to finish, but I agree with your opinion of final scene.
I just learned the Japanese word for Christian is pronounced "Kuh-Reeshe-E-Ton" and I can now fluently read and write Japanese.
I saw the film a couple weeks back and its pretty good (coming from a martin scorsese movie)
Oh man, your portuguese is terrible, lol.But as always great content, really informative and entertaining as usual. I just wish the movie were half as entertaining, that way I wouldnt had forgotten I had seen it. It had some good performances but it really was slow and bloated.Anyway, great work.
I think I understand his criticism. I mean I liked the movie but it is unnecessarily long and it does drag in places. I can be honest and say a few times I was a little bored but I was fine with most of it. Not my favorite Scorsese movie but it was alright and Garfield is absolutely incredible
This movie is a masterpiece.
I had no idea of Japan's successful stamping out of Christianity prior to watching the movie, and later looked it up in a book about Japanese history, after which my admiration for the Japanese went through the roof.
Toyotomi Hideyoshi may have gone insane, but his successful preservation of Japanese culture is to be commended.
I did not expect this remake to be as good as the 1971 version and it was not.
I actually agree with you the end was lame...
I came here for the comment section
*gets salt pick ax ready for mining*
I wonder if part of the reason that the film didn't do well is because it showed the Japanese, a minority in the U.S. as the bad guy and the Christian monks as the victims. Christianity isn't exactly very popular in Hollywood or most of the media these days. I would like to know how many critics cringed at a minority doing this to a group of people they dont exactly agree with.
Brian Beckman So do know most of the US is religious and the critics loved this movie
This is baffling. Christianity is strong in the US and many critics, including non-religious ones, loved this movie? Do you just love making up bullshit to justify your oppression fetish? Sorery, but Christians aren't suppressed here. If anything they suppress the speech of other groups.
Just because the US is grainin' its beliefs doesn't mean its ill-targeted.
Don't tell THE Martin Scorsese how to make a better film, just stick with what you're actually good at. I mean come on, "the cardinal sin of filmmaking?" GTFO.
How about feck off, cause its his channel.
The movie reminds me of the Armenian genocide.... I wonder why, Turkey?
Raime The Fume Knight cuz it didn't happen?
What's up with Andrew Garfield in religious movies now? What's next? Andrew Garfield in "MUHAMMAD'S NOT DEAD 2"
Thongmaster LOL, or spider-Jesus
The Cynical Historian Spiderjesus Homecoming: To Nazareth.
Guess they wanted the previous Spider man on their check list...
Movie's called silence
90% of it is people talking
Funny. I just learned about Japan's elimination of Christianity yesterday.
I did not expect the Portugese Inquisition.
You cut your own review off at the knees by inserting comedy clips from Monty Python and Mel Brooks into it.
Otherwise your review would have a more serious tone to it. As a millennial I'm sure you don't like Christians, Christianity is definitely on the outs with your generation.
Nevertheless this film review could've been much better if you had cut out the comedy and just let the serious tone remain.
I suggest you cut out the comedy clips and stick with just the review.
Dusty Boot I dobt know why but I found this comment funny.
10.oo i was expecting them!.
NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition: with our two chief weapons: fear and surprise and ruthless efficiency - three, our three chief weapons... oh bugger let us go out and start again.
What is a secular priest? That term was used at around 6:20.
here is a wiki on the term: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_clergy
Another movie ruined by superfluous narration...
At least it has a nice, ironic title.
Touchè.
The CH sound in Chiara should be pronounced K as in Key, not CH as in Chalk.
hahaha as always, great video, but as a Brazilian your portuguese was funny XD
I thought it was pretty intense.