Is this an atheist film?
-
davidmw — 18 years ago(July 30, 2007 11:00 PM)
As a Christian when I saw this in '86 in the theater and now as a minister, the layers in this movie are complex.
Understand that Reagan was working against congress and arming "freedom fighters" against the government of Nicaragua. This was probably the most blatant act of our nation in trying to rid Latin America of "Communists." Liberation Theology was at it's zenith, perhaps fading, as the death of Oscar Romero in 1980 still hung like a cloud over the region.
Jeremy Irons, Father Gabriel, portrays one dominant thread of christian teaching and tradition: God is love. At it's best, it sacrifices itself, himself, in love for others.
De Niro, Mendoza, represents another thread, God calls us to fight for justice, to battle it with all our strength and courage.
This movie had the ability to speak out of history, address the current politics in the USA, boldly argue two passionate positions within the faith community and dared to challenge various communities within the church with a question: what does your faith really mean?
I hope this helps.
Peace, David -
kelly-anne — 18 years ago(September 27, 2007 01:53 PM)
As an historian, I can tell you that what I take from the film has really very little to do with religion per se, but rather any body politic competing against another for firm footing or the upper hand, with innocents harmed in the process. If you study Latin American history with any depth, you will find that while religion often presents as the institutional "face" of numerous situations, the reality of the situation really has little to do with religion at all.
That being said, there are so many valuable layers in this film that it would be a sad disservice to attempt to reduce it to terms of atheism versus organized religion. -
-
donuteater — 18 years ago(October 12, 2007 12:02 PM)
Well here i'm trying!
Maybe i should have used the word spiritual instaid of riligious.I saw The mission in 86 when it came out and it totaly grabed me!I was 16 then.I'v seen alot of good religious films but this film showed how a human can change from a sinner to well a better person.I am talking about Mendoza,De Niro's character,who was a slavedriver,brother killer first to where he changed through the word of the bible and a damngood Jezuiet priest,played by Jeremy Irons and became a priest himself.Now you have 2 priests here,one who believes they can help the Guarani indians through praying(Irons) and one who believes helping them with the sword(De Niro).
Both men want to help the Guarani,who's right who's wrong.You see it's asking the questions.In life there never is a straight anwser.You have to do the quest for life and search for the awnser yourself.
In the end they both die,the only survivors from the Guarani vilage are a couple of kids, they will be the new generations,will remember there people and the priests but also the violents and uglynes what the Spanish and Portugese soldiers did.The future lies with the next generation it's our task to help them to survive and live this world full of questions,goodness and evil.That is also what Jesus did but also other religious figures.The film has all dualities of life as we know it.WHy are there priests in the first place there?The guarani where perfectly happy without trying to change theme into Catolics.Religian,Politics it is all there in the film.
The mission for me is the best religious/spiritual film because it's well made,there is stuff to think about,the fantastic music alone by Ennio Morricone can change a sinner into better person.Now another good spiritual film for me is Martin Scorsese's The last temptation of Christ,another well made film who dares to ask qustions.
So here you go elly-anne!You don't have to agree with me but you have a little idea about my point of view about The mision! -
kelly-anne — 18 years ago(October 12, 2007 12:13 PM)
You make some great observations, but I'm glad you qualified your use of the word "religious" to include "spiritual", because that was what was making me wonder how you came to the conclusion that you did.
Again, great observations. "Dualities" was a great characterization. -
edjavega — 18 years ago(November 11, 2007 04:29 PM)
Donuteater, I think your comments and observations are super.
When this film was released in the 80's, it was the height of liberation theology, and U.S. interventionist involvement in Latin America (i.e., funding the contras in Nicaragua, invading Grenada, etc.) to "fight communism". All the more that the themes resonated.
By the way, in the Wikipedia section, it says that Rodrigo Mendoza's character (played by Robert de Niro) was Portuguese. I thought he was a Spaniard, just like Father Gabriel.
The reason this issue has bearing is that the movie makes it appear that only the Portuguese were into slave-trading. But so were the Spaniards at this time, and Mendoza was one of them. -
quaddo — 18 years ago(November 12, 2007 12:15 PM)
To me, it doesn't matter if Mendoza was a Spaniard or not.
What does matter though, is that the Spaniards in the movie proclaim that they aren't pro-slave-trading, but as Mendoza and the audience knows, they're lying.
RIP Ian. -
SomethingGuinness — 18 years ago(November 22, 2007 03:05 AM)
I would definitely, as well, say no to the atheist question. It was based on actual evidence written by the Jesuits, Portuguese/Spanish, and many other primary sources that corroborate much of what is expressed in the film:
The political strife between the church and state (lets not forget this is during the time of the Bourbon Reforms).
Actual Jesuit establishments with the Indians and their constant struggle against the Spanish, Portuguese, Mamelucos (16, 17th centuries) and even other indigenous peoples.
In the end, I seriously doubt the writer and director were trying to portray some sort of theology in the end, but the matter of how FUBAR religion can make society. -
Hancock_the_Superb — 18 years ago(January 20, 2008 02:47 PM)
I think it's more against organized religion and its corruption rather than religion itself. The Jesuits are depicted as being generally good people, if a bit naive, for standing up for their beliefs and principles.
However, it should be noted that Robert Bolt (the screenwriter) was an agnostic/atheist so no doubt this informed his depiction of characters/events in the film.
There may be honor among thieves, but there's NONE in politicians! -
GoUSN — 18 years ago(January 28, 2008 07:59 AM)
The Mission was an excellent film because it depicted the complexity of the human condition, with an overlay of faith, religion and spirituality - demonstrating the connectedness of all of them. The Jesuits' role in the New World is underplayed through history, largely because they - unlike the Franciscans - were not so linked to national governments.
As to the timing of The Mission coinciding with Liberation Theology and ridding Latin America of the radical left - I support Liberation Theology, but have nothing but contempt for the radical left. And The Mission had nothing to do with either of them.
I do get a hoot whenever "atheists" devote attention to religious themes - so preoccupied with opposing religion, that they turn their opposition into . . . religion: fervent, proselytizing, the entire world viewed through their movement.
Hey atheists and secularists: the Church has been the originator, inspiration, and custodian of Western Civilization. If you want to know what happens to a world when "organized religion" is hostile to beauty, try Islam.
"Imagine I had placed into my IMDB signature a clever saying regarding people like you." -
sakkamarra — 16 years ago(September 07, 2009 12:31 AM)
"the Church has been the originator, inspiration, and custodian of Western Civilization."
You mean like when many great works of art from classical, pre-christian culture were banned and almost written out of history? Or how about how free thought, which before the church was prevalent, was turned into grounds for burning at the stake, or how philosophy was reduced from the likes of the work of Plato to discussions concerning how many angels can fit at the tip of a needle? How about how such amazing Greek discoveries such as that the earth is round and how wide and big around it is were, due to contradiction with the bible, forced to be forgotten? How about how algebra or zero, being conceived of by muslims, were also banned?
It wasn't for a thousand years, until the beginning of the renaissance, that western culture could pick up where it had left off, and not without great resistance from the church.
I also find it hard to believe that the church could be both the originator and inspiration of Western Civilization given that western civilization had already existed for thousands of years before the church ever existed. As for me and, I assume, anyone with a basic understanding of western history, I'd choose to live in pagan Greece or Rome before I would ever think to subject myself to the dehumanizing efforts of the church. And thanks to the free thought and far more advanced civil systems during these pre-christian times, I'm sure I'd probably live a more inspired, long, clean, and prosperous life than I would under any church. -
GoUSN — 16 years ago(September 07, 2009 10:11 AM)
It is impossible to engage in dialogue with anyone so intentionally blind. Your points are so profoundly wrong - factually and contextually - that it must stem from either personal bitterness and the resulting demand that we view the world through your warped prism, or the other kind of ignorance that stems from receiving then promoting wrong information. They're both bad, and could well be Specimen A of either genre. Originators of bitter posts like yours are more effective when they at least conceal their anger. Putting it on such conspicuous display only helps us more quickly grasp your kind. I am sure you would have been right at home during the horrors of the French "Revolution," where the lackeys in charge directed a return to the pre=Christian markers you promote in your post. Chaos, more terror, murder, elimination of ordered society. As to your desire to live in pagan Greece or Rome because of their cultural superiority, I can only laugh and wonder what picture book of those times you have on your coffee table. I'd rely less on the pretty pictures and find out what really went on. Then come back and lecture us.
What a goof. -
sakkamarra — 16 years ago(September 08, 2009 10:48 PM)
"It is impossible to engage in dialogue with anyone so intentionally blind."
Nice way to avoid the challenge of a debate. If I am wrong then argue your point and tell how so. There are many personal jabs at me in your post and you seem to assume much about me. The only personal information I gave out however consists of me saying I'd rather live in Rome than the pre-renaissance church. Yet you can somehow gather that I am bitter and angry and would have favored the french revolution (seriously, WTF?). I am not overly bitter, nor am I angry. I am not personally affected by the church so I cannot see how that is so. What did bother me was YOUR misrepresentation of the church's role and one thing I do not like is the mutilation of history. After several readings of your most recent post I have found nothing that even attempts to defend your original claim that "the Church has been the originator, inspiration, and custodian of Western Civilization", which as I have said, is not only wrong and improbable, but also impossible (unless the popes have had a time machine all along, tricky bastards).
As I stated before: THE CHURCH CANNOT ORIGINATE NOR INSPIRE SOMETHING PREDATING IT BY THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
The majority of my post attempted to disprove your claim that it was a custodian. Even if I were wrong on that point, then I am still right in that you were very, VERY, wrong on everything else.
"I have nothing but contempt for the radical left."
This is a perfect example of what I am talking about: you claim that I am angry, bitter, blind, and ignorant, yet you proudly proclaim your own anger and then are blind enough to decry me for what you contend is mine.
Not like any of that personal stuff matters. All that matters is the truth: the church did NOT originate nor inspire western civilization. Go ahead and try to stick to your original claim.
PS Your post is rude, immature, lacking of debatable content, and contains name-calling. -
GoUSN — 16 years ago(September 09, 2009 07:35 AM)
My oh my! An eight-paragraph response. I must have hit the mark. And made my target very, very angry. He appears gloomy even.
So, let's take it this way, Sunshine. IMDB documents an industry based largely in Los Angeles, actually named La Ciudad de Nuestra Senora de Los Angeles, or City of Our Lady of the Angels.
So, calm down a bit and let's take this step by step, shall we hon?
No Jesus, no apostles, no apostles, no Church, no Church, no Catholic Spain, no Catholic Spain, no Franciscans, no Franciscans, no California, certainly no Ciudad de Nuestra Senora de Los Angeles, and if no Ciudad de Nuestra Senora de Los Angeles, no IMDB and, likely, no you.
Got it sweetheart? -
sakkamarra — 16 years ago(September 09, 2009 01:41 PM)
What are you a 60+ year old woman?
Your train of thought is insane and I'm filled with not anger but a very sick and uncomfortable feeling in my gut as it sinks in that granny has gotten out of her cage at the old folks home again and is now attempting to flirt with me.
I think your inability to stay on topic and creation of such an incoherent response is evidence enough that you'll continue to evade the prospect of an actual debate and are therefore not intellectually worth it. I will take great pleasure in copying your posts and emailing them to some friends for laughs, and for that, I thank you.