Hmm. To a true believer, bringing Christianity to the "ignorant" natives would seem like the ultimate kindness. To an atheist, it seems like the ultimate destruction of an indigenous culture which should have been left alone.

However, speaking as an atheist, this film demonstrated all the things that I find hypocritical and stupid about organised religion. I just wondered how other people saw it.
Let's try not to turn this into a theological slanging match.
You insult religious people and their beliefs and then ask the very same people not to insult you back. Hello pot I'd like you to meet kettle.
VHS>DVD

I do not see it as an "atheist" film, but rather a condemnation of the power of the Catholic Church.
The Church works hard to equate themselves with God. That they only way TO God is via them. That is to say that being against the Church is to be against God. The early rapacious and deadly colonization of the Americas could not have happened without the approval and encouragement of the Church.
The blood on the hands of all those that follow the Catholic Church can't be washed away until the Church learns to apologize and make amends for the wrongs of their past. Sadly this will never happen as the Church cannot even accept that mistakes by them are possible.
The Catholic Church does not equal God, in-spite of what they want you to believe.

However, speaking as an atheist, this film demonstrated all the things that I find hypocritical and stupid about organised religion.
Actually, it displayed all the good and beauty of religion. It displayed all the bad of politics and economy, however.
As a Christian man, I found this movie and the acts of father Gabriel and later acts of Mendoza as inspiring and beautiful.
The slavers are not Christian. They used Christianity as an excuses to murder and enslave innocent people. Similar to how modern day terrorists use Islam as a toll to terrorize and murder countless amount of people.
http://www.138cult.com/forumdisplay.php?11-Manly-Movie
-WOW what a site!

I've just watched The Mission for the 2nd time, after many intervening years. Speaking as a Christiannot a "non-atheist"I can answer your question. It is a film with both Christian and human perspectives. The argument that you make, that hypocrisy is a reason to disbelieve in Christianity, is an argument against humanity, not against the teachings of Christianity. Man is flawed by the sins of pride and greed, among others, as exemplified by Cabeza and the Portuguese crown he represents. And the church is populated by flawed men, as exemplified by the Cardinal and by flawed men who are trying to rise above their human nature, like Mendoza and Father Gabriel. The churchsmall case or upper case "c"is not Christianity, as the Cardinal learns to his sorrow. Following the tenets of the New Testament is Christianity.
In one scene, Rodrigo Mendoza reads from 1 Cor. 13, Paul's famous "love chapter." Later, Father Gabriel refers to the love Paul writes about. Loving both God and one's fellow man is at the heart of Christianity. In their different ways, both of the main characters demonstrate their love for the Guarani people, which according to Jesus in Matt. 25, shows their love for Him. It would be nice if atheists would let us know their arguments against Jesus, His life and teachings, instead of attacking man's imperfect institutions that have grown up around His name. To argue against hypocrisy is to argue against man, against yourself, not against Christianity. As for stupidity, anyone who believes in hate rather than love would naturally find Christianity "stupid." For anyone who has feelings for his fellow man, there's hope.

The film is simply an allegorical telling of Liberation Theology in Latin America. Liberation Theologists are monks, priest and lay people who are progressive Catholics who think that the Catholic Church should do more for peasants and against oppressive, rightist regimes. they often face excommunication from the Catholic Church, as the Catholic Church usually supports pro-American far-right dictators.
''What fear is provoked by the face of fascism!'' - Vctor Jara, murdered in Pinochet's coup.

I am an atheist but I would never call this an atheist film, I still love it though.
Interestingly, The Church Times, an Anglican newspaper elected this film as their number one favourite religious film. You could consider this a religious film by the way the missionaries are depicted. Mendoza is a sinner who seeks redemption by learning and spreading the word of God. On the other hand, the movie also shows the hypocricy of the Church. If it really is a religious film, then it's a more honest one. That is why it doesn't bother me at all as an atheist. It shows the beauty and attrocities caused by the spread of Christianity. Also, Mendoza decides to break his vow to the Jesuits in the end in favour of the Guarani. He clearly chooses for his own sense of righteousness above the doctrines of religion.
You could perhaps argue that the movie takes too much of a sympathetic view on the missionaries who try to "civilize" the "savages". Europeans who try to push their culture down people's throats. That doesn't bother me either. De Niro's character is shown learning as much from the Guarani as they learn from him. The Guarani remain proud people despite their acceptance of Christianity.
In my opinion, the movie is neither a religious nor an atheist film. It doesn't take a clear stance for or against believers. It does take a stance against slavery, collonialism and organised religion. It's a thought provoking film that encourages people to think for themselves and decide what's right.

I think the crux of the film was to show that Earth is not the idea of a place for humans to dwell in peace, it is an endless battlefield with a special and restless enemy, meaning you.

I took it as more of a tale about both human compassion versus human cruelty. As an athiest, it was still very moving and important. I think it transcends religion, but still can be appreciated from a religious viewpoint.

It's not an atheist nor theist movie, it is human movie. The notion of soul and connectedness to everyone and everything, vs the notion of power and "because we can". Even atheists do not subscribe to power abuse, even tho they reject organized religion and dogma as preposterous.
You still have feelings and empathy, you don't need religion for that. Same question stands again, does might make right?

Amen!!!

I think that the movie mainly criticizes the fact that the church is too involved in political questions to let their own priests do the work of god around the world.
Your mother cook socks in hell!

My only conclusion is trust God not the so-called organised religion, I call them more like a disorganised religions.

No there is nothing atheistic in this film. Only atheistic thing in the film is atheist court of Europe and a marquis mentioned by one of Portugese authorities. Religion is something depends on person. You claim it's hypocrticial and stupid, a Muslim extermist blow himself for rewards which his religion grants(at least that's what he claims), what Cardinal in the film understands from religion is limb must be sacrificed to save whole body and for Jesuits religion is total sacrifice and love.

This film is about the love of the missionaries for the indigenous people, and their willingness to give their lives for them in the end. They answered to a higher authority than the armies of Portugal, or even the Catholic church. You don't have to believe in God to appreciate the missionaries' love for their fellow human beings. I thought this movie had a beautiful message of love, and teaches a terrible lesson about the ruthlessness of those in power to take what they want, regardless of the loss of human life involved.

Having first saw this movie 25 years ago in a theater, I re-watched it tonight on Nexflix. I saw nothing atheistic about it anywhere. If anything is seems to be a comparison and contrast between two theologies: liberation theology and pacifism. One man took other lives before his own life was taken yet no battle was won. The other took no lives yet lost his own life and still no battle was won. The concluding words of the movie were something to this effect by the Eminence: "In the end, your holiness, two of your priests are dead, but I live on. But in reality I am dead and they continue to live in the memories of the people." The battle for indigenous peoples still continues today in South America by the church, some leaning toward a defensive liberation theology, while others continue with more pacifist methods. And as the closing words stated, "many have given their lives."

The Cardinal failed, but this film also showed how some of the priests sacrificed their own lives for the natives they loved. So it shows the best aspects of religion too.

<> <><

Speaking as an admitted atheist (and one who adores this film), I don't think this is an atheist movie at all. It's about a great many things.
Liberation theology, individual morality, political morality, faith, redemption, how best to pursue one's ideals in the real world, etc.
At some level, though, I think this movie is an indictment of organized religion from a macro-level. It's not saying that all religious people are bad; that is a gross oversimplification, and the movie trusts that we're smart enough to get that. Our heroes, of course, are Jesuits who genuinely believe they are helping the natives. Whether they did (excluding the issue of religious conversion) is up for debate. But I don't think there's any way to condone, excuse, or ignore the unpleasant fact that the Church, as an institution that is, ultimately failed in protecting the very people it set out to "save."
People will argue that it was really a failure of one man - the Cardinal - and that it's impossible to blame the Church as a whole. But this flies in the face of most modern morality and our current jurisprudence. The Cardinal was acting on behalf of the Church; he was its representative; the Church existed, at least partly, through him in South America.

In my view this movie showed how wonderful true Christian faith put into practice can be. And even though the ending shows material destruction of the missionaries and the native peoples they have achieved spiritual and moral victory.

This message has been deleted.

Its on the Vatican's greatest movie list, so its definatley NOT an atheist film.
http://www.usccb.org/movies/vaticanfilms.shtml

Unfortunately, I think this film simply reinforces viewers' preexisting opinions on religion in the world. Atheists look at it and see the mealy-mouthed hypocrisy of organized religion that makes it so easy to reject churches, while the faithful look at it and feel inspired by the self-sacrifice of the noble missionaries who lived and died for their ideals in a difficult world.
I don't think the film ever confronts the 'truth value' of the Christian faith. This is why there are a number of posts on this film's board about whether or not the Jesuits were immoral themselves as they were also cultural invaders. The forces in this film (power structures, economics, ideals) collapse at a predictable rate and represent the human condition. I do not believe the story itself proselytizes in any sense, happily leaving the viewer to their faith or atheism. Instead it is probing (if some what narrowly) the meaning of martyrdom within the Christian tradition in light of the human condition.
I think you can be absolutely anything or anyone and contemplate alongside the film.

The film is not athiest.. the ending means that evil would get you whatever choice you make (violent or non-violent). It also means that might would fail in the face of love. beautiful film

There is no way to begin this thread with, "Is this an atheist film?" and not have it become a slanging match. And I think you must know that.
The short answer is no, this is not an atheist film. It is strongly pro-Catholic while simultaneously being strongly anti-clerical. This combination of reverence for the faith and disdain for the Church hierarchy is common throughout Latin America and in Spain.
In Mexico today, a marriage cermony carried in a churchany churchhas no legal standing. Couples must obtain a civil marriage certificate in order for a marriage to be legally recognized. No president of Mexico dared be photographed outside a church until the mid-1980s. This is not because Mexico is anti-Caothlic; however, the Mexican ruling elite are leary of sharing power with the Church. This is why a profoundly Catholic country is so ambivelant about the Church.
I think the film carries this basic sensibility.