An excellent, thought-provoking and very disturbing film.
-
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. -
efa-3 — 13 years ago(November 19, 2012 09:52 PM)
You just feel guilty, care to share why?
It is not white burden, because it happens all over the world. Mongols, Ottomans, everbody. Every empire at one point of the other aimed to subjugate others, either via direct force, economical domination or subversively/ideologically.
The question in this movie is does might make right, and as such it is timeless. -
tikouka — 12 years ago(October 04, 2013 11:47 PM)
Totally agree. I was brought up a Christian, but having lived in many parts of world, I see how utterly wrong it is (evil?) to tout that Christ is the only way to heaven. What about the millions before Christ? Where did they go after death?
It is like Christians claim a priority of Heaven. That is disgusting. And for missionaries to go force this on hapless people is unforgivable.
I looked this movie up in IMdb because it is on Sky tonight, but I am going to give it a miss.
Well written, my friend. -
hjls — 12 years ago(October 29, 2013 11:35 PM)
I agree that some pretty horrendous things have been done in the name of 'religion'. This film is based on the type of events that actually happened. We cannot change that, as much as we regret the racism and falsely perceived superiority of the white man.
-
kimdino-1 — 12 years ago(November 07, 2013 09:39 AM)
I feel the NEED to reply but don't know where to start. Perhaps by suggesting that you get your head out of the 20th century & put it in the 18th. Then you will be able to judge the story from the only context the participants knew of. While your head is there then the two or three points in the film where the film makers slip in the question 'Is it right for us to be changing these people' might stand out more.
I, personally, am an antitheist who sees little difference between preachers and drug-pushers. However, I recognise that the Jesuits were very good people acting, if naively, for what they believed was for the best. And this is exactly what the film makers portrayed.
Now to answer your point.
Should we just let stories like this die, then we can deny that we ever did such things? Or alternatively lie so that we come out in a good light?
I prefer to take the film as an object lesson in 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'.
Now please watch it again, and look out for the points where Altamirana (might've been Gabriel) thinks it might not have been a good day for the natives when wind & sea brought Europeans, and the notes in the end-credits. Also, try and understand the scene after the battle when the children disappear upriver, shot in a manner that implies return to innocence as good. -
indioblack117 — 12 years ago(December 07, 2013 04:06 PM)
I thought the film was about the Jesuits bringing their faith to the natives, which the natives seemed happy to have accepted, but in so doing, remained free people.
But the Catholic church connived with the Portuguese and Spanish colonialists because they wanted to enslave the natives and take over their lands. So they slaughtered them and the Jesuits, and drove the survivors back into the jungle.
So the people of true faith and belief in humanity were Jeremy Irons and his Jesuits. The bad guys were the Catholic Church, and the Portuguese and Spanish colonialists.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
And certainly the truth should not be despised. -
Internal_Sunshine — 12 years ago(December 13, 2013 03:08 PM)
The Jesuits were essentially exploiting the native's ignorances, which were reasonable for them to have.
"We're going to make Christains out of these people." WHAT THE HELL WAS WRONG WITH THEIR OLD BELIEFES AND WHY ARE WE GLORIFYING THIS KIND OF INDOCTRINATION!!!
It's been a while since I've seen this film and this thread is ollllld, but I think you're missing the point.
The point was not to inflict their beliefs them for selfish reasons. It was to make them seem more human to the slave traders, and I find that incredibly saddening, moving, and selfless.
~
We've all got light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on.
~