''Christianity manifestly did not produce the Dark Ages - which instead were induced by invasions of Imperial Rome by tr
-
sakkamarra — 16 years ago(September 08, 2009 11:20 PM)
I'm an atheist, and I very much enjoyed your post. It appears there is some truth in what you say, in that there are analogies to Christ and the bible in this beautiful movie that may have gone over my head because I am not looking for them as some ardent Christians might.
I do wish to point out, however, that the opposite is also likely true and some Christians may not have entirely "seen" this movie either. There are aspects of the movie that willingly or not do point out the hypocrisy and failures of organized religion.
I like to think about what Rodrigo and Gabriel's inspirations really were. Were they inspired by Christ, or was there something innate within them telling them what was right? An atheist would likely say both, while a Christian would probably say that they are the same thing. -
katiegan — 18 years ago(March 13, 2008 07:11 PM)
The theology is correct in part of the Jesuits. At this point in history, the Catholic church was just a much a political power as it was a theological influence.
But no - I do not believe it is an Atheistic film in any sense. The theological and political tryst are summed up well in the last few words of the Cardinal
Senor Hontar says something like it - the slaughter was necessary because thus is the world, and the Cardinal responds "No Senor Hontar, thus I have made it".
It is a struggle of personal conscience and what is just vs. what must be done for political gain. -
przgzr — 18 years ago(March 17, 2008 08:02 PM)
In fact this is complete truth. But your words leave place for misunderstanding, so I'm not sure if you are not certain what was happening, or it was just a choice of words that, though correct, might mislead someone who is not informed well enough to make a wrong conclusion.
So I'll add few notes and I hope that you don't mind (but if you don't agree with me, please reply).
"What must be done for political gain" doesn't have the same meaning now as it did so many centuries ago. Yes, church is rich and was rich, probably more in those days, it has power now and it had more power in those years.
But power was bigger in lower social classes, mostly because church had knowledge and was supported by monarchs, while ordinary people had no knowledge and were supported by nobody - except that same church, in case if they were devoted to their priests.
However, the power and wealth of church didn't influence much on the aristocracy and monarchs. If any modern priest, bishop, pope has enough money, he can buy a plane or ship ticket and go to America, Australia, Asia. He and his congregation can buy a house or land to build a church. Centuries ago there was no ship to take them to America unless a king allowed it. They had to be given a permission to build churches or to be present in certain country, because religions were usually official regarding to the monarch's religion. So if the monarch was unsatisfied by certain priest or religion group in general, he could have made their life and work difficult, or simply forbid it.
So, despite wealth and power, people of the Church had to consider the will of the politicians when they were making decisions like the one in "Mission": maybe they sometimes had to sacrifice some people so the religious community could survive and exist in future (and contribute to prosperity of society in situations when politicians didn't have so big interests). It might seem to be a hypocrisy, and it is indeed, but not a bit as big as if it happened in modern world. However, we can see hypocrisy by far less frequently among priests than among modern politicians (those kings in old days were at least honest enough to say that this is what they want, so it must be; and modern presidents and prime ministers try to make us believe that their procedures are something that can't be avoided, something for benefit of the whole civilization, or - as the ultimate hypocrisy - something that we want). -
zelda1964 — 15 years ago(August 23, 2010 06:24 AM)
I write this to say I just caught "Mission" again(this morning) and express my opinions.It was the fact that The Church wanted to "indoctrinate" a people that
seemed uncivil.When the missionaries did a great job of "teaching" the so- called natives,then it was necessary to kill what Life they had.
That is a case of "too many cooks" spoiling the Broth. -
MovieMan1975 — 16 years ago(May 13, 2009 03:53 PM)
No this is not an atheist film. Its the opposite, its a film about faith in religion and the love of God.
The higher elite of the Church may not be shown in the best of lights, but the depiction of the work of the Jesuit missionaries is definitely overtly pro-Catholic. -
fileboy2002 — 16 years ago(November 06, 2009 09:42 AM)
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. -
Hypatia42 — 16 years ago(December 31, 2009 12:21 AM)
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. -
danfinocchio — 16 years ago(March 22, 2010 01:54 PM)
Its on the Vatican's greatest movie list, so its definatley NOT an atheist film.
http://www.usccb.org/movies/vaticanfilms.shtml -
netrek — 15 years ago(September 19, 2010 06:04 AM)
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.
-
montecristo42 — 15 years ago(December 20, 2010 08:05 AM)
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. -
rogers-mike-42-986834 — 14 years ago(April 30, 2011 08:34 PM)
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."
-
nielw — 14 years ago(July 24, 2011 10:34 PM)
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.
-
Belethin — 14 years ago(August 18, 2011 02:16 PM)
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.
-
matheusmagalhaes10 — 13 years ago(April 14, 2012 01:20 PM)
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!