An excellent, thought-provoking and very disturbing film.
-
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.
~ -
KingBrian1 — 11 years ago(July 20, 2014 03:26 PM)
In the scene when the Cardinal sees the mission he was mesmerized by the sincerity and holiness of the aboriginals. He described the Jungle as an Eden. In contrast in European people were challenging the authority of the church so the movie is far from being racist. A very pro Christian movie.
-
CitizenCairParavel — 11 years ago(July 26, 2014 11:29 AM)
But if they were thoroughly convinced that Christianity is true and believed that it was and is the cure for the world's ills, then I don't see how you can fault the missionaries. Anyone who searches for truth would want there to be an arena for the free exchange of ideas. Many will fall by the wayside after withering scrutiny. Others may actually thrive. Those that do may be very close to the truth.
-
yihdzelonh — 9 years ago(November 03, 2016 05:35 AM)
The movie is somewhat less than the sum of its parts: good cinematography, good acting, but film lags too much; is a little too uninteresting throughout most of the movie; it's also difficult to watch a movie where the 'bad guys win' (the anti-Christian/anti-Jesuit hypocritical imperialistic King's men) and don't get their deserved 'come-uppance' (pardon the seemingly 'un'-Christian viewpoint of not feeling the desire to 'turn the other cheek' or for recognizing 'moral victories' in the death of the good guys).
The issue has never been 'organized religion': It's the contradictions that very stupid and flawed men that supposedly represent 'organized religion' that cause so many people to hate organized religion. Inasmuch as proselytizing occurs amongst Native peoples in a way that doesn't 'force the religion on them' and force them into slave labor and other things of this nature, organized religion is a good thing. It isn't enough to simply be 'spiritual': God did organize a crystallized 'religion' (through Jesus Christ)though nearly all Christian denominations are 'bastardizations' and 'corruptions' of the church that existed when Christ lived.
Nearly all kings and royalty are contradictory dumbasses who 'claim' to be Christian and serve a Christian God (including dumbasses like Obama, Trump and Hillary Clinton) but are hypocritical retards who, in 'practice' and 'in spirit' are as un-Christian and anti-Christian as can be possible: You can't be a Christian if you believe that the 2nd most serious sin that exists (homosexuality which is worse than adultery and every thing else besides murder) is a 'good' thing and homosexuality should be advocated and legalized. If child molestation is a 'sex crime' then homosexuality should be that much MORE of a sex crime with that much more severe of a punishment.
You can't be a Christian if you believe in Satanic crap like abortion. Nearly all people and rulers of nations are corrupt worthless pieces of garbage who should be assassinated and put in their proper place. Their authority isn't worth anything -they HAVE NO 'real' authority.
From a scientific stand point, the tribe in this movie -culturally, regalia, genetically- seemed (like many or most circum-Amazon basin South American Amerindians) to be nearly purely Austronesian-derivedmost closely resembling the pre-contact natives of Philippine Islands.
I give the movie 5 out of 10 stars. -
al666940 — 9 years ago(December 23, 2016 11:37 AM)
""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!!!"
Not the case here, but switch the people here from people whom practice say human sacrifice (up north, the Aztecs and Mayans) or female circumcision (Africa), and you'll get a clear cut picture of the stupidity of your question.
Plus you clearly did NOT see the movie, for the Jesuits were not pushing the Guarani to absorb European customs/values, they left them to keep their ways and language. If anyone learned a new language, it was the Jesuits.
Just answer this: whom moved and lived among different people here? The Guarani, or the Jesuits? -
AnthonySocksss — 6 months ago(September 02, 2025 08:51 PM)
Christians also practice mutilation on babies (circumcision)
Melton1 Wanted for Pedophilia:
https://i.ibb.co/6cnPmJVr/IMG-0830.jpg
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Zjxk307CND0
