The reason I despise this movie
-
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.
-
przgzr — 18 years ago(June 03, 2007 08:05 PM)
I'm sorry if you get so easily annoyed, but years on these boards make people learn to ignore people like starwars-25. I hope you'll succeed to go beyond them.
And I hope that now and then you still visit this board; I'll do my best to avoid being annoying.
The fact is that these Jesuits left their world because they so strongly believed in something. They could have stayed in their warm and safe churches, enjoy benefits of respectable and rich affiliation within Catholic church, like monarchs stayed in their castles, like Pope stayed in Rome, like modern presidents stay surrounded by their guards in their residences in Washington (searching for virtual weapons in Iraq and bravely conquering forces like Grenada), Moscow (exporting revolution to African nations that never heard of it, and weapons to achieve it), Tehran (bravely sending children to clean the minefields and enable soldiers to be shot), Tel Aviv, Pyongyang, London
But these people chose, because of their firm belief that it is not for benefit of Christianity, but for benefit of the Guarani or any other non-baptized nation in the world, to sacrifice their commodity, position, security. They left everything to spend lifetime in conditions that noone of us would probably ever chose. They did it with the same passion as Curie, Pasteur, Lister, Edison, Dunant, Coubertin or Champollion had in their life and work. But noone doubts their motifs. As long as not related to religion.
The Jesuits changed their life incomparably more than Guarani had. What did happen so wrong in their existance due to jezuits' arrival? If Jesuits hadn't gone there, Guarani still wouldn't have better future. Jesuits, in the end, din't help them and didn't aggravate their destiny either. As long as non-religious forces were away (and today western democracy is so proud of being civilian and secular, avoiding even mentioning its christian origins) there had been no violence. Yes, there was a white men burdon, but it was not brought by jesuits. It was brought by soldiers, merchants, politicians and those church people who were in close relations to conquerors because of certain interests of their own.
And some movies have been made from that point of view. But do all movies about certain topic, age, event have to show always the same side? Do you find Schindler's list a blasphemy because of showing a German (even a member of nazi party) as human, capable of doing something good? -
przgzr — 18 years ago(March 14, 2008 01:55 AM)
Sorry? No, I'm, grateful.
Funny? No, helpful.
In fact I was using a word "motive" before, but as I've read some posters that (obviously mis)used the word "motif", I thought that they know English better than me (and even felt ashamed for the mistakes that I had done). I should have checked the dictionary instead.
Anyway, thanks again. -
a_hat_trick — 14 years ago(December 18, 2011 03:28 PM)
"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."
The film does not do that. People may see some of the religious figures as heroic and, thus, assume that the film portrays all their actions as heroic. But it does no such thing. It is common for people to give this reading to films becuase people are used to seeing white hat characters in their entertainment. However, what the film does is portray a variety of actions and their consequences. Indeed, we see some of the natives return to the jungle and it seems that this is perhaps the best outcome as they others lead to slavery, death from fighting, or death from passive resistance. Sohardly a film that is cheerleading European culture.
Regarding the lack of depth to some that respond to you: you just have to get used to that around here and ignore them. Don't let them turn you off. At least, I hope they haven't. -
Liberanos5 — 18 years ago(April 21, 2007 06:00 AM)
Wow Maynard, what an over simplification. The sub plot, if you would like to call it that, is one of sin and forgiveness. Rodrigo commits murder most foul and cannot forgive himself much less accept forgiveness. The theme of a "burden" is definately there but it's not "white man's" it a literal burden..a penance if you will. Mendoza drags it through the jungle until it is again literally cut loose from him. The most powerful scene IMO. Metanoia. Forgiveness both of self and of others and consequestly conversion. It is in these scenes where the Cinematography oscar is earned I think! A certain kind of person cannot "get" a certan kind of movie. I walked out of "Borat" and will never "get" Will Farrell. That's just me. Your screen name suggests you will never "get" this movie, Maynard. The Politics of Portugal in that time, slavery, protection from slavery, you let you anti christian agenda cloud your sight. The exploitation of these natives was carried out by the slave hunters of which Mendoza was one before committing murder. His conscience got the best of him. Would that we ALL could experience forgiveness on the level he did!!! This is a story of conversion on many levels. I'm sorry you missed it.
-
rodderstenio — 18 years ago(May 09, 2007 02:53 PM)
This will be my first post on here. Just wanted to say thank you to all who posted, good or bad, regarding the subject and intent of the film. Having not watched it yet I feel I will now do so a slightly more enlightened soul, if you'll pardon the phrase.
Much obliged. -
Eliakim48 — 18 years ago(May 12, 2007 03:50 PM)
Quote from you: "This was a concept that was born around the age of exploration that essentially said that it was the white man's responsibility to convert everyone to Christianity in order to save their souls. I don't really need to point out that this is one of the most disgustingly arrogant and racist concepts in history, basically stating that all non-Christians are heathens and are all going to hell unless they convert to the words of Jesus."
Well, considering that Christianity started in a completely different race, you're wrong there. In fact, when it spread, originally, it was Middle Eastern primarily and into the races around there, spreading on over to those races of the East and also of the Far East, as it made it into India. In fact, it made it up to the English areas, before there ever was an England. And it spread world-wide, through many races, before there was ever a Western culture, as we have today.
The Western nations were not the perpetrators of Christianity, they were the recipients of Christianity, having received it from other races and other countries first before it ever becames established in the "West". Heck, there wasn't even a "West" yet.
And today, that's still true. You find Christians in Africa, who claim that their own heritage goes back to the days of Israel and not from some Western nation. In many countries around the world where in past years missionaries were unable to get into the countries, those countries and their native citizens spread /Christianity within their own borders by their own people.
In fact, it's highly arguable that Christianity is less a "white man's religion that it's a religion of the world, containg more people of color than of whites. I would venture to say that white are far outnumbered in that way.
So, your understanding an analysis is deeply flawed and shows an extreme ignorance of how Christianity started, how it was spread, and what people groups it consists of today. You need to do a bit more studying on the topic before you open your mouth again and embarass yourself even further -
WDformerWB — 18 years ago(May 31, 2007 07:54 PM)
Part of why I love movies is how they make me feel, and how they get me thinking. This movie was achingly beautiful to watch (cinematography), broke my heart listening to it (music - IMHO Morricone's best), and the themes of guilt, redemption, exploitation and futility were very powerful to me. I can understand how someone else with a different background, temperament and sensibility than me might take something completely different away from it, however.
I think - and this is personal opinion, not fact - that the OP's comments on "white man's burden" were understandable, but I didn't see it the same way and after many viewings over the past 20 years I still don't see it.
If anything, I viewed the Jesuits' presence in much the same way that those living 200+ years from now might very well view my attitudes and opinions: as being a product of my culture and time, some good, some not so good, some potentially wise and enlightening, some ignorant and destructive.
I've never watched this film - and I've seen it multiple times - with the thought that the Jesuits' converting the natives was something "good" for the natives. I understood the Jesuits' motives, but motive alone isn't enough to ensure a morally satisfactory outcome. You know what they say about the road to hell. Anyway, I put much of it into historical context, and while I might appreciate and even deeply admire Gabriel's motives and methods they weren't enough to compensate for or ward off what ultimately happened.
Perhaps I'm not making sense - for me, this movie is not meant to glorify anything, very least of all religion or Christianity. If anything, it could be used as an indictment against same along with colonialism. Human frailty combined with the futility of doing what one thinks is right against a far more powerful enemy makes for compelling cinema - for me, anyway.
This is ultimately a beautiful, tragic movie - always makes me cry. It is a complex, not easily pigeonholed look at the clash of colonialism, evangelistic religion and how some societies have been crushed underneath both yokes when having the misfortune to encounter both at the same time. -
AzraelArt — 18 years ago(June 04, 2007 02:14 PM)
I think you're missing the point. While they were definitely missionaries out to spread the word of God, the fundamental truth they were preaching was that they were more than the men and women who lived viciously in a jungle. There was much more beauty and technology in the world that could make their struggle to exist as human beings simpler. Running water, music, planting crops, etc.
You will remember Gabriel answering that 'some had converted,' but that it did not seem as big a concern to him as protecting so-called primitive people from slavery. The fact that it was a missonary who took on this role is inconsequential to the story. Do you not recall the scene where he first encounteres the Guarani and begins to play music? Remember how the younger warrior reacted? It was not God, but music that brought out this response.
Do not see this is a 'Christians must save the world' type of movie. This is not a religious epic, this is a human tale, a struggle against slavery and the 'ways of the world.'
Hontar: "We must work in the world, your eminence. The world is thus."
Altamirano: "No, Seor Hontar. Thus have we made the world. Thus have I made it."