An excellent, thought-provoking and very disturbing film.
-
davedeefam — 17 years ago(August 14, 2008 10:31 AM)
Boy if you thought this movie was glorifying the evil European conquests, I must have watched a different movie. And that is, by the way, one of the basic generalizations in history. A tendency of trouncing what Europe and America did while giving a pass to every other culture. As the best answer to the question ever given shows: Why did Europe enslave so much of the world? Answer: Because so much of the world was unable to enslave Europe. That the 'evil' Europeans showed up while the 'beautiful' natives lived in harmony and peace is a stereotype that, thankfully, is giving way to a more realistic assessment. Of course Hollywood can only deal in sweeping generalizations. But that was hardly, in this movie, a case of glorifying the white man's burden. It was adopting the typical post-WWII 'evil Europeans screwing up the beautiful natives' point of view. But nevertheless, it is a wonderful and moving film.
-
leforcat — 17 years ago(August 27, 2008 10:16 AM)
I don't know if it's been stated in this thread, but the whole meaning of Christianization of these aprticular Indians was in order to save them FROM the certain destruction from the hand of the Jesuit Order - not primarily to just convert them. This point, which is THE prime point of the film, has been completely and incomprehensively missed by many!
This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator -
tomcardello — 17 years ago(October 11, 2008 11:47 PM)
You're sadly mistaken. This film is not preaching, it's simply telling a story- a story of what actually has taken place throughout much of the world through the many centuries. That story is the story of man's inhumanity to man through a vehicle known as slavery. The film didn't indict the white man; remember, the white man is both antagonist AND protagonist in this film. Rather, it shows the two faces of good and evil.
Think about it. -
Radworld86 — 17 years ago(October 20, 2008 09:16 AM)
I'm glad so many here have stated it. You may have seen this film but the original poaster did in watch the film. Its in no uncertain terms who the bad guys are and who the innocents are. The Jesuits although noble in their intent know that the natives are far better off without them then with what comes with them and its obvious that they are as influeneced by them and their way of life.
-
In-Vino-Veritas — 17 years ago(October 29, 2008 06:50 PM)
Well, the Cardinal says at one point 'These peopel would have been happier if nione of us had ever come to them', so I don't think it com[pletely glorifies the so-called 'white man's burden'.
However, it is a film about faith versus religion - and Father Gabriel, the man of faith, is the defender of the native customs. He explains why they kill a throd child. Mendoza is happy to be painted in the war apint of the tribe - the Jesuits conform to the local culture, to a certain extent. And the tribal people with their arrows are protrayed as infintely more 'civilised' than the Europeans with their guns.
Christianity is based on the Word, and it was responsible for the spread of literacu and other useful cultural tools. Besides which, a lif eof 'turn the other cheek' has to be preferable to nearly any other way of living, if modern times have anythign to show.
And I don't think it's fair to say that the rain forest people are exploited and ignorant - that is as denigrating as the philosophy you claim to reject! Afterall, they killed the first priest. It was love and not ideas that prevailed. If Christianity could only be developed parallel with lack of education, the world would never have had isaace Newton. Recerend Martin Luthor King, William Wilberforce of JRR Tolkien. And Christiani5y is the prevalent religion in the Werstern, developed world - which does not in any way denigrate the spirituality of other parts of the world.
And I can't spell either - or maybe it's more typong that's the problem! -
El_Farmerino_Esq — 17 years ago(November 17, 2008 07:59 PM)
Well, the Cardinal says at one point 'These people would have been happier if none of us had ever come to them'
Exactly what I thought of when I read the OP. It's been years since I saw the film, but that was the line that stuck with me
What I really liked about the film was its lack of judgement of all concerned. It covers many perspectives - from Gabriel's absolute faith to Mendoza's "man of action", through the Cardinal's realist attitude and the dog-eat-dog ethic of the Spanish and Portugeuse governments - though it never portrays one way as being 'right'. I'm not in the least bit religious myself, but I feel the film's portrayal of religion to be entirely fair. While I cannot condone the white man's burden ethic, it would be equally wrong to assert that the Jesuits (and, by extension, religious missionaies in general) did nothing good for those they 'converted'. What they did, much as I disagree with the philosophy behind it, was born out of a genuine love for their fellow man. -
romina_p — 17 years ago(January 17, 2009 08:21 PM)
Ok, I've read all the comments and I'd just like to point something out, being as I am a citizen of Paraguay, a mestizo Guarani country, and found very interesting all that you've said.
Many of you have been arguing about the "imposed" Christianization that you believe the Jesuits worked on with the natives. This is hardly true because although the Jesuits presented the idea of Christ, heaven, hell, etc to the Guarani, they did it in accordance with the natives' own religion. Now, what do I mean by that? The Guarani had their own beliefs and the Jesuits just mixed those beliefs with the Christian beliefs so that it wasn't completely different from their own. All the central ideas were basically originating from the Guarani customs. Even the images of saints, Christ, and angels that they carved in wood in doors, walls, dolls, etc all were native. According to their interpretation, Jesus was really a native, like them and they drew him this way! If any of you ever get to visit the churches in Paraguay that were originally constructed by the Guarani, or the Jesuit ruins, their entire culture -along with their ideas of Christian beliefs-are clearly shown and stamped in their admirable work.
Having said this, I hope I made it clear that there was no "white man's burden" conversion or anything of the sort since usually when people are forced into believing somebody else's ideas, there's no room for changes or improvement, which wasn't the case this particular time. There was no "glorification" of the white man's religion, they presented an idea and the Guarani people had the option of accepting or rejecting it. Even today there are many Guarani who aren't Christians, as well as Guarani who are.
One more thing. Jesus probably wasn't white, considering his place of origin (no offence meant people, just a thought), however one of his last petitions to his apostles was for his word and ideas "to be spread" (not the exact wording I'm afraid!) around the world Is this controversial idea to be considered a "white man's burden" although he probably wasn't even white? Isn't it just the methodology that Christians widely use until the present day of spreading Christ's word? Regardless of the color? Maybe it should be re-phrased "Christian's burden" to more accurately portray your point.
Finally, I'd like to say that this spectacular movie by no means is glorifying the concept of "you indian savage - me white saviour", quite the opposite actually, that the Indian savage saved the souls of one of them, Father Rodrigo, through acceptance and forgiveness. Just a my opionion!
If any of you would like to see pictures of the Jesuit Ruins in Paraguay, here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesús_and_Trinidad_Jesuit_Ruins
Or pictures of the inside of the Yaguaron Church (franciscan mission), Indigeneous handicraft:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=353588 -
kreoli — 16 years ago(May 31, 2009 02:06 PM)
As I see it, the christianity was just a part of the setting. The movie really focuses on how the art & music that the missionaries took with them make the life in the tribe better, not how christian values and morality makes the indians better people.
The christianity the missionary spread could have been any culture that valued and preserved beauty.
But otherwise, I agree with you. What you are saying is the reason I gave this movie only 8 not 10. -
degree7 — 16 years ago(August 07, 2009 11:44 PM)
This is not a glorification of the 'white man's burden'. If anything, that theme should have been swept from your mind within the first few minutes where it shows the natives crucifying a priest and tossing him off a waterfall. It's obvious that that priest must have tried to force his ways and opinion down the native's throats, which they did not like. The reason they accepted to build the Mission with Father Gabriel was because he showed love and compassion for the natives. He just shows them his love the best way he can, through his faith.
But even his faith is tried when it is revealed that the Catholic Church has cast off the Jesuit order and refuses to protect the Mission. Gabriel and his followers stay behind to be with the natives, and as a result they are even excommunicated. Gabriel uses his religion to bring them all together as a community, but his conflict with the church is still relevant today. True Christians are the ones who have an unconditional love for their fellow man and are willing to accept others into their faith. But the European monarchs, as well as the Church itself, kidnapped, enslaved and forced the natives to convert into their society.
To me, Gabriel was acting with love for these indigenous people as much as through his faith.
"But why is the rum gone?!" -
Phaenon — 2 years ago(March 27, 2024 11:49 PM)
Me too!
I'd tell myself not to waste a decade trying to get people to explain why they thought Prometheus was an intelligent masterpiece movie full of depth and would become a cult classic in the near future
Ding Dong
!
-
Freidenker — 16 years ago(December 24, 2009 05:22 PM)
There is a quote which says: "The good battle santifies every cause". I don't care if it was wrong or not, I see history bereft of the judging eye of the fundamentalists, each thing has an implicit beauty, but sometimes people can't see another point of view than their own, sad to be so coerced and limited by this dictatorship of today's moral. Free yourself and open your mind to a different world that originated this one that allows you to think as you do.
-
jeanniemotherof3 — 14 years ago(May 28, 2011 08:52 PM)
Hey Manynardis.. You may want to worry about alot more than your spelling!
" I am the way, and the truth, and the Life, No one comes to the Father but by ME."
Says the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords!!!
Your post was very sad.
People GLORIFY THIS DOCTRINE because it's truth. I hope you have come to realize this and BELIEVE by now. -
Eumenides_0 — 13 years ago(June 06, 2012 10:00 AM)
The Jesuits were essentially exploiting the native's ignorances, which were reasonable for them to have.
So, in your defense of the natives, you've basically just said that they were all simple-minded? You're implying they were incapable of self-criticism and to decide for themselves whether Christianity was something they were interested in accepting. You're basically saying that having intellectual curiosity about a foreign culture is a horrible thing.
I see this argument a lot from people like you - I just don't understand exactly how you're doing them a favour by basically stealing agency and decision-making faculties from them. Considering natives as children is something that's also very much in line with the White Man's Burden line of thinking.
This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.