The reason I despise this movie
-
anticaria — 18 years ago(March 21, 2008 01:46 PM)
<<
limited intelligence?? who are you to judge??? you can't even spell 'susceptible' and yet you cast aspersions regarding these amerindians' intelligence level?? hilarious arrogance and hypocrisy seem to be the predominant traits of those who merely look for 'excuses' to bash this fine, thought-provoking film. besides, the amerindians were not exploited for they were not being held against their will.. they were merely being presented with another option other than violence, and they were always free to leave the mission.
<<<the focus of this movie isn't the catholic faith itself or christianity.. this movie is about the flawed humanity of mere men and it merely depicts the actions of a group of europeans who devoted their lives to rescuing the amerindian natives from the encroachment of the slave trade.
there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that angle.
the truth is that many missionaries gave their lives selflessly while trying to bring better living conditions to amerindian natives, and they deserve to have their collective memory honored for their love and devotion and their heroism ought to be truly inspiring to both christians and non-christians. -
imcaptainjacksparrow-581-826007 — 12 years ago(September 18, 2013 03:53 PM)
And you also have to ask yourself, if people believe that if everyone doesn't follow their way of thinking they will burn in an eternity of torture, how can you not see such a level of arrogance in that.
I also am happy that a conversation like this can go on without either people being jerks about it. I'm a Christian. I believe that there is one way to heaven, through accepting Jesus Christ. What I don't understand about what you said is the arrogance in that. I didn't make it up. I believe that this is the truth, that before I became a Christian, before I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I was going to go to hell when I died. What is arrogant about that. I am no better than anyone else. In fact, one of the greatest Christians of all time, Paul said that he was the worst of sinners. Nothing arrogant about that. -
szisoman — 13 years ago(October 30, 2012 05:20 AM)
Really? is that why catholics & orthodox slaughtered one another for a few centuries calling the other heretic and blasphemers? I like the way christianity sells tyrannical dictatorship under the guise of love, you cannot go to heaven unless you believe in jesuswhy? because he died for the sins of othersdid those people ask him to do so? nope..but yet he is asking for suspension of belief & logic by listening to & obeying the church to go to heaven!
In actual fact, jesus, or rather yeshua, was talking to jews of his time, not to europeans or africans or anyone else. If his message was to everyone as its falsely claimed, he would have gone along to other lands & given them his message in their own language & given them one that actually helps in life!
" Let's go get a drink & smoke a cigarette" -
NearyJ34 — 19 years ago(February 13, 2007 02:03 AM)
Somehow you seemed to have missed the core of this movie and what it was saying. To me it seems to have said just the opposite. It is the Christains in this movie who are plagued by their conscious, because of what they see being done to these Native peoples. It is the missionaries without the spirit and soul. Give it another watch. It is worth it. It is the Christian angst that makes the movie ite is.
-
MLHendrick — 19 years ago(February 17, 2007 03:59 PM)
I so agree with NearyJ34. It's been a while since I've seen this movie, tho am contemplating it for a discussion at my (Catholic) parish. But everything I remember is that it questions the "conquistador" approach to Christianity rather than condones it. You see the missionaries' singlemindedness and zeal, but you see how humanly flawed they are as well thereby flawed in arrogantly believing they were so superior. For another, I should point out that Fr. Daniel Berrigan, the famous liberal political-activist priest, plays one of the extras a real Jesuit playing a fictional one, if I recall and, believe me, he wouldn't be caught dead in a production that glorified the ways missionary zeal could often trample on natives' inherent human dignity. If anything, I seemed to remember that this film promoted a bit of the "noble savage" view of life.
-
metaxu-1 — 19 years ago(February 18, 2007 05:56 PM)
Yes, it's been a while since I watched this film, but I too seem to recall that, in both tone and substance, it portrayed the tragic consequences for everyone involved of the "white man's burden" mind-set. Give it another lookI plan to.
The image which sticks in my mind is the iconic one of the priest (irons?) on the cross going over the waterfall.
And Vortexridernot ALL Christians believe all non-Christians are going to hell. I realize that some Christians mark the boundaries this way and refuse to call those less concrete-minded than themselves "Christians"the Jesuits and the conquistadors portrayed in the film certainly would have held this viewbut then that's one of the lessons I took from the movie: the danger to all of our continued survival when dogma trumps reason and compassion. -
irisheyes317 — 19 years ago(February 21, 2007 09:28 AM)
You're missing the point. Rather, Gabriel made the point that the missions were PROTECTING the natives from enslavement! Also, the jesuits made an effort to adapt to the culture by living right in the jungles with the natives.
-
youcrazyoldman — 18 years ago(March 12, 2008 04:15 PM)
Uh, i agree, the movie was very boring, but after i watched it for the 2nd time, the message became very clear. I just wish the speed of the movie was faster, or something. I mean I was falling asleep. But excellent movie, besides that
-
katiegan — 18 years ago(March 13, 2008 07:29 PM)
Side note: Jesuits do not still hold this view (that all non-Christians go to hell), nor do I think any of them really did once they integrated into a culture. Even the Catholic church has said that it is possible for non-Christians to go to heaven (even though its through being "anonymous christians" - more so meaning that they have accepted right action, thought, and have pretty much lived good lives).
-
CanuckGirl — 16 years ago(September 22, 2009 12:32 PM)
Thank you NearyJ34 for your comment. I couldn't have said it better myself.
The only other thing I would say is that we cannot rewrite history to make it "nice". This is really what happened to these people. "The Patriot" is a perfect example of Hollwood messing with history. Mel Gibson's character was a plantation owner, in 1776, that didn't have slaves. He had paid servants because he was "nice". And all British were made into characters without conscience, who slaughtered several of his children because they were "evil". Talk about balderdash.
Lastly, the Jesuits were doing what they thought was best for the people AT THAT TIME. Only now do we know what it did to the natives. Since the dawn of civilization, man has done evil things with good intentions. -
montecristo42 — 19 years ago(February 27, 2007 11:05 AM)
I think the message of the film was a bit more complicated than just simply "white man is good, so he must save the savages from themselves." The Jesuits are made out to be the heroes/protagonists of the film, but every character and each group of characters had their flaws.
Considering that the Portuguese hired soldiers to slaughter a peaceful, native, and "Christianized" society undercuts any such portrayal of the white man as morally elevated. If anything, the movie was positing just the opposite. But such racial distinctions oversimplify the movie entirely: the Jesuits here are good people, but the men running or influencing the government are evil. So you can't just say "white man good, natives bad here." Certain white men were good; certain were bad.
While I myself do not ascribe to the Jesuit's beliefs, I can sympathize with them. Gabriel won the natives over not by the sword, not by the gun, but through his offering of peace and forgiveness (playing the oboe near the waterfall, which was a great scene).
Gabriel and his priests truly believed that their message and beliefs centering on love and forgiveness would make the world a better place. Do you seriously think that trying to spread that message, without any sort of compulsion, is a bad thing? While I myself do not ascribe to any beliefs based on religious principles or faith, I certainly sympathize with the Jesuits in this film. They did not attempt to force themselves upon the natives in any way, they lived among them, they made sure the natives kept their own culture intact. And, despite the Church and the King's orders to the contrary, they gave their lives protecting the natives.
The themes of the movie touched upon guilt, forgiveness, love, peace, and redemption. Not on the white man or his beliefs being superior. -
MaynardisGod — 19 years ago(March 04, 2007 07:50 PM)
It's been a while since I've posten on this topic from back when I started it, and it's been interesting to see what people have writen. But I think some of you missed the point of what I originally said.
I'm well aware that all the characters had their flaws, and I'm well aware of the negative light that this film shined on the conquistador (I have no idea how to spell that) approach to Christianity. My point is the much more subtle sort of satisfaction that i think the audience was intended to have during certain parts. For example, when the natives build that church and especially the excentuation of the cross being put on it, the lines like "We're going to make Christains out of these people," and so forth. I can't help but feel like the audience is supposed to subtly feel like the natives are finally taking the right path. Do I support the protection that the jesuits were giving them, of course I do. I'm not beep Hitler you know.
So again, to restate my point, what I personaly disliked about this film was the subtle glorification of the conversion of these natives. Some people said that they didn't see that at all. That's cool. Whatever. But I personaly saw that to a great extent. I didn't say anything about the conquistadors. I know that was also a large aspect of the film. I'm just talking about that one subtle aspect of the film that drove me to dislike it, although it had tremendous acting. Mad props for that.
Once again, I know I can't spell. -
MaynardisGod — 19 years ago(March 06, 2007 12:56 PM)
Wow, what an intelligent response.
"1. you really cannot spell
2. you love Tool"
I can't believe no one else here thought to say that. Yeah, you really proved me wrong with that well thought out response. I can't wait to hear how you draw the connection between Tool and the movie The Mission.