Again, probably long-winded and repetitive, as I just saw it and am still formulating my thoughts on it the day after.

>Who cares?
>
>That's the honest question that I think people who didn't like
>the film were struggling to answer. Given everything going on
>in the film, who cares if the European guy suddenly learns
>that he's just a man? And is that lesson really so great that
>I have to watch an hour of Japanese people being tortured to
>get the European guy there?

It's not about just the European guy. It's, in fact, highly critical of the European guy and European guys like him. It's not asking for his redemption. I think in 2017, the story of watching guys who insist they're right and they can lead "wretches" and "beasts" and they refuse to hear how condescending and arrogant they are is... pretty astonishingly relevant.

>Beyond that, I didn't see him finding godliness. His journey
>ended with him still preaching in secret but now he was also
>snitching on people smuggling in goods and (presumably)
>getting them killed. The fact that we were supposed to see
>Garfield's character still keeping his faith as some kind of
>victory rang hollow for me.

But that's just it! I'm not convinced he *is* still keeping his faith. I know I wrote above that he learns he's just a man, and that's the lesson he *should* learn... but does he actually learn it? What is his faith at that point? Who knows? The final moment can be read a billion different ways-- I think the moment in which he hears God through relating to another man for the first time doesn't mean he is transformed, nor does it even necessarily mean he's learned his lesson.

>But just take the movie you saw and imagine the moviegoer
>didn't buy into the importance of Rodrigues's journey. I don't
>think it's hard to understand how the movie could seem
>interminable.

I can understand that, sure. I'm just pointing out that the point of Eurocentricity here... is a criticism of that Eurocentricity. And it's unclear if the European lead here even learns a lesson (even if he does come close to realizing he's "just a man" once or twice), because as you point out, his actions at the end leave a lot open-- on both sides of the argument. If people are tired of seeing Eurocentricity used to criticize Eurocentricity, then okay, I can dig that.

>>It's almost like the man who made Wolf of Wall Street was
>>content to just tell a story, show many sides, and let the
>>viewer decide. Fancy that.
>
>Just because it's not a one-sided telling of the story doesn't
>mean that he gave every side its due. I think that's the
>issue people have with it. Just like with Wolf of Wall St.,
>you compliment him for nods to other sides but other people
>think he ignored very important aspects of the story that
>might have made the lead character seem worse. (And in the Q&A
>I was in, Scorsese dismissed the imperialism storyline as
>something he didn't want to cover too much. Almost a
>distraction. I think the people who didn't like the film
>believe that's a very key element to what was going on in
>Japan at that time and isn't a sidenote that could have been
>dismissed.)

I can't speak for Scorsese's Q&A... but the lead character comes off really badly without going into depth regarding the country's history with imperialism. I'm also not convinced it ignores that history-- again, as referenced above, it's alluded to all over the place during the second half of the film. Rodrigues *is* that imperialism, and all of the shouting and preening and refusing to listen tells us just as much, if not more, than a laundry list of the atrocities.

I can't blame anyone who wants a movie about the atrocities of imperialism in Japan during that time. I get it. It's a story that deserves to be told. But I don't think that makes this story any less interesting-- or any less critical of the missionaries' imperialism.

>EDIT: MTV of all places has a good example of this reading of
>the film:
>http://www.mtv.com/news/2969662/its-hard-out-here-for-an-imperialist/

"Or, perhaps: “Sympathy for the White Devil.” That Silence asks its audience to care more about the narcissistic crisis of its Portuguese protagonist than the welfare of the 17th-century Japanese populace is howlingly infuriating and racially insulting."

I almost stopped here, because I certainly don't think it begs for sympathy for Rodrigues, and it *certainly* doesn't do so over the populace, as it goes to great lengths to point out Rodrigues's narcissism.

I read through and found a bunch of other things I disagreed with, including some points missed. In particular: "the fact that we’re never given a reason for the harsh persecution of Christians — such as the threat the foreign religion may pose to national unity — render the inquisitor and his advisers a pack of effete but vicious predators." <--- This is factually inaccurate, as they spell out *that very reason* during the second half of the film! There's a whole speech about it! They discuss it at some length! They come across in that scene as quite reasonable, and certainly far smarter than the stubborn and preening Rodrigues.

Again, I understand that there are perspectives that I will simply never understand due to my race/gender/upbringing/etc, and I'm not about to tell anyone that their desire to see a different type of film about this era is wrong, because that desire *isn't* wrong. I too would be very interested in that movie. I just don't think this movie is any less interesting or complicated or thought-provoking or valid just because it's about what it's about. And I *definitely* vehemently disagree with any review that ignores how critical through truth, from beginning to end, the film is of the missionaries. If a viewer points out that it'd be even more critical with greater context, sure, I can't argue with that-- but I think it's already quite critical as is.

If people object to simply any movie made from the imperialist's perspective, then I can't argue against that-- but writing it from the imperialist's perspective doesn't make him the key figure of empathy, nor does it make the character immune to criticism. In fact, hearing the narration from his perspective, the letters he's writing, allows him to form the noose that the audience (and his inquisitors) will hang him with later.

You found it boring, which I dig-- I've certainly found flicks other people liked deadly boring as well. I just don't agree with some of the criticisms I've seen lobbed at this film.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide