The reason I despise this movie
-
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. -
halfwayintelligent — 19 years ago(March 30, 2007 11:38 AM)
Even today, the christians are the only ones who have any interest at all in the survival of many indigenous peoples from all over the world, including in south america. It is true that they have the ulterior motive of converting them, but this is a lesser of two evils. The fact is that due to contracts drawn up by the imf and world bank and signed by the governments of countries with indigenous populations, the lands that they lived on for thousands of years are literally sold out from under their feet. Not only do church groups stay behind and hlelp them defend their rights, they are also the only reliable voices that can speak out to first world about these tragedies. If it weren't for the church groups, history would have been written soley by the kings and slave traders. Columbus would still be seen as some kind of hero and not a mercenary pirate. I'm no christian, but I am very thankful for much of the work that they have done. Of course, it still doesn't make up for the Spanish Inquisition, but hey, they aint perfect!
-
tac-15 — 19 years ago(March 19, 2007 07:00 PM)
Why you despise this movie? because you believe that "Maynard Is God" (what a notion).
Where's the white man's burden? In his head.
The Jesuits protected the Natives from slave traders and brought two cultures together; they borrowed a concept from the Franciscans who were there before them and used the "reductiones" -bringing the people out from the jungle and helping them to build a settlement which gave them an even stronger sense of community and protection.
The Jesuits' only interest was to bring them the Gospel -what's wrong with that? Not forced conversions. I'm sure that no one had to be baptized that didn't want to be so. And if the Guarani were attracted to the person of Jesus Christ and embraced his Gospel willingly? They are far wiser in their simplicity than many of the "knowledgeable" fools of today who scorn Christ and his Gospel.
Yes, sadman, though one may learn to hate truth and fear goodness, especially when these are not so marketable as discord and dishonesty, there is, yet, a remedy: love and grace. However, cynicism often stands in the way and seals a heart in its stoneyness and pride. -
MaynardisGod — 19 years ago(March 29, 2007 06:52 PM)
OMG, wow. So far this is the second complete idiot who has commented on this topic. I've read and heard a lot of people's opinions on this and some had some very valid points that were interesting to read and even made me see a couple of things a little differently. Then of course I'm confronted with two morons (tac-15 and starwars-25) whove commented on this, both using my ID name as argument points. I have now witnessed first hand proof that this world really is full of idiots. Yes, the white man's burden is an arrogant and slightly racist concept. If you don't agree then what ever. That's totally cool. The Jesuits went into South America to convert the natives because they believed that everybody who didn't worship Jesus was going to burn in an eternity of pain. I understand that that generally goes with the territory of Christianity, and don't say that I don't know what I'm talking about because I actually go to a Catholic school and have studied the bible and the church. But that doesn't mean that I have to like it.
So once again, for the last time, the aspects of this film that made the turning of the natives into Christians as a right and glorious thing drove me to dislike the film. People have been going off on all these different history rants and lessons when I'm not really even talking about history per say. I'm just talking about a cinematic viewpoint. Oh yeah, and tac-15, I loved that self-righteous, condescending tone you had with your little rant about cynicism at the end of your comment. Yeah, I give a cinematic opinion and your calling me Sadam. Though one may learn to hate truth and fear goodness, especially when these are not so marketable as discord and dishonesty, there is, yet, a remedy: love and grace. What the hell are you talking about? Stop trying to sound all high and mighty to arrogant beep I never said anything negative about peace love and honesty. I read well thought out and incite full comments like the ones made by cjpowell and vortexrider and then I put up with idiots like starwars-25 who say stuff like 1. you really cannot spell 2. you love Tool. Try being a bit smarter next time you wanna rip on a perfectly fine movie and then you.
I'm getting really beep sick of everyone on here twisting my words around, so I'm just ganna stop commenting on this. -
druss44121-1 — 18 years ago(April 05, 2007 10:48 PM)
one thing i'll give you, there are obviously some very Pro-Christian people here who also fail to see the complexities in all this (and trust me, I'm no hater on Christians or especially the Jesuits who often were the smartest of their group and scorned by other Catholics, especially when it came to this and Span and Portugal wanted the natives for labor.) Still, let's not go into "everyone hates Jesus lol" and all that bs about how somehow Christianity ISN'T the biggest religion on Earth and one that got there sometimes by force, very different than what The Mission shows. Nobody has completely clean hands.