Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Overstreet

Silence (2016)

173 posts in this topic

Second viewing, I was able to focus more on the images and cinematography, as well as the performances. There are some beautiful, well-framed shots, from the opening scene to the various moments with hands holding crosses, a repeated and important motif that was clearer on a second viewing. This time, the scene with Kichijiro's renewal of faith and first confession with Rodrigues brought me to tears, and I do think the film's moral/emotional center may lie with Kichijiro.

Alas, on the second viewing I also noticed the same sound issues, even in a wholly different theater. I don't want to ruin people's experiences of the film by nitpicking and pointing out the particular scenes, but I'll just say that the sound design for this film is noticeably lacking. It all had to do with the mix and dialogue: the ADR and a distinctly distorted/static moment with a few lines. Bummer, but I think it's more than just a one-time poor theater experience. Can they fix these things for Blu-ray/DVD release? I hope so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Joel Mayward That's weird.  I don't know what you're picking up on, but I thought it had one of the best sound designs of the year, and I read a couple other reviews that thought so, too.  If there is an issue, I'm sure they can fix it on the Blu-Ray if they're aware of it.

 

I thought this movie was incredible.  Probably the movie of the year for me.  I just saw it Wednesday night, and I'm already reading the book as well.  It's interesting so far, because while the movie was more immersive than the book's early chapters, the efforts Endo goes to to recreate the historical perspectives of the characters really pays off.  There seems to be a much clearer sense of the language and cultural barrier between the priests and the Japanese, and a subtle, unconscious, but clear sense of superiority that the priests have over the peasants.  This complicates things more than I was aware in the film, at least in the first 45 minutes or so.

I find it interesting that those non-Christians who praise the film--the people at Reverse Shot, for instance--seem so eager to point out the distance we supposedly have from Rodrigues, and how critical of him we should be.  While watching, I was identifying with him very closely, imagining my own reactions in his position.  Scorsese nearly always pours himself into his lead characters; their pain becomes his, their evil and their tragedy are made real to us by the way he looks through their eyes.  I suspect Scorsese has made the story more intimate and immediate than Endo presents it in the novel, though I cannot say for sure yet.

I'm not sure what to think of that voiceover at the climax.  Presumably it's from the book?  I wondered if it was Neeson's voice at first as well, but I quickly concluded it wasn't.  Was the cock crowing three times right after that a perfect touch, or was it too much?  I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Peter T Chattaway  I haven't read through the whole article yet, but apparently Film Crit Hulk agrees with you on that voiceover.  Here's the relevant paragraph {SPOILERS AHEAD}:

Quote

Take for instance the strange, almost surreal moment in Silence where god actually breaks his titular silence and speaks to Rodrigues. It may seem a strange choice to have this other worldly moment... Except for the fact that the voice of "God" is none other than Ciaran Hinds, his old father and head of his church back in Portugal. It's a detail that makes a brilliant statement, both about Rodrigues's sincere belief in hearing god and yet backing up the notion that it is not a moment of otherworldliness at all (it's just his reference point). It's such a small detail that opens up another world of interpretation and yet you could miss it so easily. But to me it's a perfect representation of Scorsese. He doesn't hand it to you. He doesn't guide you. If you don't see it, you miss it.

Whole thing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My review, in which I tried something a bit different--writing from the perspective of Kichijiro in the spirit of Ignatian contemplation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Film Crit Hulk wrote:
: It's a detail that makes a brilliant statement, both about Rodrigues's sincere belief in hearing god and yet backing up the notion that it is not a moment of otherworldliness at all (it's just his reference point).

Exactly -- the "reference point". Rodriguez consistently imagines Christ through *mediated* points of reference like the El Greco painting and the voice of the religious authority who sent him to Japan. We are left to ponder whether God is genuinely speaking to Rodriguez through these things or whether he is seeing fragments of his own mind, his own memory storage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What would his people back home want if they ever learned just how far from them he'd really gone? He broke from them and then he broke from himself. I'd never seen a man so broken up and ripped apart..."  Capt. Willard - APOCALYPSE NOW

SPOILERS AHEAD

A lot of thoughts went through my mind last night while watching (experiencing) Silence.  But, for some reason, I kept coming back to this line from Apocalypse Now.   I don't think I've read any comparisons yet between these two films, but I believe they share much in common.  The line above not only applies to what Father Rodriguez finds when finally confronted with the man who once was Father Ferreira, but also with what the Dutch trader finds with the man who was once Father Rodriguez.  I hope to have more thoughts later, but this film is still percolating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this last night. I'm not sure I can add too much; like others, I found the movie about a half-hour too long--but (unlike other Scorsese flicks) that extra thirty minutes actually helped in some ways, since Rotriguez's journey is so grueling. It's a way of getting us, as the audience, to feel a similar sense of weariness. Other thoughts:

1. Yôsuke Kubozuka as Kichijiro was very good--particularly in the middle, though the character tapers off a bit toward the end.

2. The character of the Inquisitor was...hmm. Well, not like I pictured from the book, which is no crime, but also--seemingly--a bit on the stereotyped side. He veered in a direction that would have made me very uncomfortable if this movie had been made in the 1940s. OTOH, I've not seen Issei Ogata in anything else, so perhaps I've just spent too much time in 1940s pop film. I do dearly love that character, as well as the Interpreter, both of whom go a long way toward complicating the stuff set up in the first half of the movie.

3. I felt like the movie was less clear than the book in showing from the start that Rodriguez is kind of a jerk. By my reading of the novel, it's pretty clear from the beginning that Rodiguez's view of the villagers is--at the very least--flawed, and at the worst imperialistic. Some of this comes out in the last half of the movie, but initially we're left to assume that he's correct, or at least that the film thinks he's correct. The fact that Garfield looks so much like a European Jesus doesn't help--again, the novel treats his Christ-likeness ironically from a pretty early point, but the irony is delayed here precisely because Garfield looks like [some versions of] Jesus.

4. This movie is really, really gorgeous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NBooth said:

I felt like the movie was less clear than the book in showing from the start that Rodriguez is kind of a jerk. By my reading of the novel, it's pretty clear from the beginning that Rodiguez's view of the villagers is--at the very least--flawed, and at the worst imperialistic. Some of this comes out in the last half of the movie, but initially we're left to assume that he's correct, or at least that the film thinks he's correct. The fact that Garfield looks so much like a European Jesus doesn't help--again, the novel treats his Christ-likeness ironically from a pretty early point, but the irony is delayed here precisely because Garfield looks like [some versions of] Jesus.

In my second viewing, this seemed more pronounced and noticeable. It's portrayed very subtly, and Rodrigues is less of a jerk and more of a person with good intentions and misplaced actions. For example, his insistence to the Japanese on contacting other villages right away is such poor advice, and Rodrigues truly doesn't know what he's talking about, but Garfield plays it with such sincerity, it doesn't appear overtly colonial/prideful, or at least it didn't stand out to me in the first viewing as much as the second. His contempt for Kichijiro seemed also more pronounced in my second viewing.

No one else has noticed sound issues? I'll post the one particular scene here, because I feel like I'm crazy, and don't want to spoil anyone's experience, but I heard it twice: it's the ocean crucifixion scene, when Mokichi first begins to speak, and before Ichizo dies. As waves crash over him, he says a few lines, and each one is has noticeable feedback/static/hiss that is only present when he's speaking, almost as if his track in the mix is muted until his lines are said, and the white noise comes through too.

4 hours ago, NBooth said:

This movie is really, really gorgeous. 

The visuals also felt more pronounced on a second viewing. Jeff Overstreet said something in a Twitter conversation comparing this film to Andrei Rublev, how Tarkovsky's film is more painterly. This is true, but the power of Silence is not just in its story or performances, but in its images, maybe mostly in its images. It's a film which addresses, even embraces, both the Image of God and the Word of God dynamics within Christology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBooth wrote:
: OTOH, I've not seen Issei Ogata in anything else, so perhaps I've just spent too much time in 1940s pop film.

I was surprised to learn, between my two viewings of the film, that Ogata had played the Japanese businessman in Yi Yi. He also played Hirohito in Sokurov's The Sun. Those are the only other films I've seen that he was in, I think. Apparently he's also known for his work as a comedian in Japan.

I'd really like to know why Ogata's Inquisitor seemed to *deflate* after Rodriguez replies to his "You don't understand Japan" by saying "You don't understand Christianity."

: The fact that Garfield looks so much like a European Jesus doesn't help . . .

Huh. That possibility never even occurred to me.

Joel Mayward wrote:
: His contempt for Kichijiro seemed also more pronounced in my second viewing.

Same here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, NBooth said:

2. The character of the Inquisitor was...hmm. Well, not like I pictured from the book, which is no crime, but also--seemingly--a bit on the stereotyped side. He veered in a direction that would have made me very uncomfortable if this movie had been made in the 1940s. OTOH, I've not seen Issei Ogata in anything else, so perhaps I've just spent too much time in 1940s pop film. I do dearly love that character, as well as the Interpreter, both of whom go a long way toward complicating the stuff set up in the first half of the movie.

In my backstory reading, evidently the Inquisitor was an openly gay man, one of the few such leaders in the Tokugawa Era.  Nonetheless, he struck me as more than a bit stereotyped as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Peter T Chattaway said:

I was surprised to learn, between my two viewings of the film, that Ogata had played the Japanese businessman in Yi Yi. He also played Hirohito in Sokurov's The Sun. Those are the only other films I've seen that he was in, I think. Apparently he's also known for his work as a comedian in Japan.

I'd really like to know why Ogata's Inquisitor seemed to *deflate* after Rodriguez replies to his "You don't understand Japan" by saying "You don't understand Christianity."

That was such a fantastic moment - and not because I entirely understood it. I think it could be read a few ways. But it was an unexpected reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be able to take critiques like this more seriously if they at least pretended to grapple with the fact that Silence is a Japanese novel. Not that the movie is dependent on the book for its interpretation--but it does, one would think, modify how one reads the movie (for instance, the Son/sun pun that the author here points out has its origin, though it does not appear verbatim, on page 148 of the English translation of Silence).

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 29, 2017 at 8:44 AM, NBooth said:

I'd be able to take critiques like this more seriously if they at least pretended to grapple with the fact that Silence is a Japanese novel. Not that the movie is dependent on the book for its interpretation--but it does, one would think, modify how one reads the movie (for instance, the Son/sun pun that the author here points out has its origin, though it does not appear verbatim, on page 148 of the English translation of Silence).

I saw that article, too, and thought it was terrible!  They get a literature professor to review the movie in one the 2-3 most important book review publications in the country, and she barely acknowledges the movie is even based on a book??  Not only has she not read the book, she doesn't appear to have done any other research on the story or its historical background, adding in all sorts of assertions about colonialism that have very little to do with the movie.  If she had a real historical knowledge of the period and was critiquing both film and novel on their depiction of historical colonial and missionary activity, that would be one thing, but she makes all sorts of assumptions and anachronistic assertions that tell you she doesn't know what she's talking about.  She talks as if the priests were sent by the Portuguese political authorities.  Is Kichijiro really treated as a "running joke"?  Were the priests really thinking about their own "whiteness," and was their any "homoeroticism" about Rodrigues's "attachment to his fellow priests"?  

More offensive is this sentence and the points that follow it: "Scorsese thus attempts to give Catholicism a philosophical gravity that its flattened popular versions often lack."  Because Catholicism doesn't have any natural philosophical gravity built on 2000 years of thought/debate/theological structuring (fed by several of the greatest minds the world has ever seen) and laying the foundation for the Western intellectual tradition which she is writing from/within or anything.

 

(I am confused on the Son/Sun thing, though--some quick Googling suggests that Francis Xavier had problems because the Japanese names for the Christian God got confused with first a Buddhist deity, then with a word for "big lie."  Is the Son/Sun thing just an English translation of that?  Because that would be a weird and unnecessary dumbing-down that you would think the translator could more easily explain with a footnote or something.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

StephenM wrote:
: Is Kichijiro really treated as a "running joke"?  

People *have* been laughing in the theatre as his cycle of apostatizing and confessing goes 'round and 'round, for whatever that's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My follow-up piece on "Apostasy, ambiguity and Silence": 

Quote

Silence depicts the development and refinement of a ruthless, nearly perfect machine for destroying Christian witness. What is the Christian response to this machine? Thousands of Christians professed their faith and died martyrs’ deaths. Others made compromises, trampled the fumie, and lived their faith in secret. It was due to the latter, in part, that Endo’s own faith came down to him.

Silence is many things: an indictment of Western imperialism and cultural chauvinism, a jeremiad for the ruthless ingenuity of Japanese cruelty, a hymn to Japanese martyrs and a tribute to hidden Christians. Thinking about it over the last several months, I confess, I’ve gone back and forth on what I think of the climax.

The cock crow, among other things, clearly frames Rodrigues’ act as a betrayal. Is it Jesus he betrays? Could he possibly have heard the voice of Jesus at the climax, and what would it mean if he did? However we answer these questions, we shouldn’t answer them too quickly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, my name’s Rob, and I’m new here. I’ve been an admirer of this community for some time, and seeing Silence recently made such an impression on me that I wanted to join in this conversation about it (even as a late-comer)! I thought the film was really impressive as an adaptation of the novel. I really love the novel, but it’s so concerned with the interior, spiritual life of Rodrigues that I didn’t know how that could be translated to film. That’s the aspect of film adaptations that I’m most consistently disappointed with, although perhaps I have unrealistic expectations. I’ve wondered if this has more to do with how one medium inherently differs from another or just how the same story tends to make me feel differently in two different media.  

This film made me feel much of what I felt when I had read the book prior to the film, which is unusual for me. Again, I wonder if that’s because the film was such a faithful adaptation, or was I just re-feeling my feelings from the book in ways that films usually don’t do for me. (This is unlike, say, my utterly different responses to the novel and film versions of Diary of a Country Priest, although I also loved both of them.) One difference though was that when I read the book Silence, I thought it was heading toward a more straightforward martyrdom. And in the climactic chapter, when that didn’t happen, I could put the book down and stew on it for a couple days before continuing. Knowing what would happen, and not having time to consider the significance of what happens, made for a very experience of the story.

Something that I wondered what others thought about in the adaptation, since I see many here have read the novel pertains particularly to the ending. (***SPOILERS FOLLOW***) I was really wondering how the film would navigate fact that the novel is told from 4 points of view: Rodrigues’ first person letters in the first third of the novel, the journals of the Dutch trader and the Japanese guard of the “Christian Residence” at the end, and the narrator, who I read as a historian (probably like Endo Christian and Japanese) reconstructing what happened to Rodrigues between the letters and the journals at the end. I thought the film handled this masterfully in taking a similar “show/suggest” rather than “tell/explain” approach.

In a sense, the film seemed to shift from Catholic to Protestant at that point, or maybe moves from Roman Catholic to catholic protestant (lowercase “c” and “p”). It acknowledged through the shift of narrator (from Rodrigues to the Dutch, presumably Protestant, trader) that Rodrigues has lost his status as one who can speak for the church or even as a member of the church. But the narrator affirms that ultimately it’s up to God to judge us not the Church—the keys to the kingdom are not kept in Rome. The end affirms the half-truth of Ferreira used to goad Rodrigues without using that half-truth in service of a falsehood. (I don’t mean it’s protestant because it seems to say that images of Christ aren’t important or stepping on one is really no big deal. I’m a Reformed Christian who loves icons, prayer beads, etc.)

Finally, I was reminded shortly after finishing the film of the end of The Last Temptation of Christ, which also ends with an image of Jesus on the cross. Silence seems to me to be just as much about our human identity with Jesus, or God’s embrace of human weakness through Jesus.

Whereas Last Temptations then ends with those flashing lights, Silence then shows the dedication to Japanese Christians and the motto of the Jesuits Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, “to the greater glory of God.” Both seem to me to be glosses on the role of faith in each film: one is ambiguous and chaotic; the other, though paratextual, a straightforward affirmation of a particular faith that both transcends culture and must be culturally instantiated, as well as dedication of the film to God’s glory, which is certainly something I experienced through this film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rob, thanks for de-lurking and sharing your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know most of the conversation on this film was happening a couple months ago when it came out, but I saw it late and I’ve been reflecting on it since. So I wanted to add a few more thoughts and engage a few threads of that earlier conversation.

 

While watching the film, a few of the overhead ("God’s eye view," though I dislike that term) shots I found a little distracting, kind of like reminders I was watching a Scorsese film when the film did such a good job of engrossing me and suspending my disbelief. But now some of those shots—priests walking down stairs so that it looks like they’re ascending, a body being dragged away—are some of the ones that have most stayed with me. Turns out they weren’t distractions so much as gentle formal shifts that made me pay closer attention (like when a novel suddenly shifts from third to first person or past tense to present tense).

On 1/14/2017 at 4:41 PM, Joel Mayward said:

Sound problems with Silence is about as ironic as it gets.

I didn't notice volume or static, but speaking of the sound, the sound in the film also did this defamiliarizing at the moments when it cut to total silence. At one point the cut to silence was accompanied by a noise that sounded like the theater's entire sound system had gone dead. I thought something had gone wrong. Not sure what happened, but it was an even more rapt silence that followed!

On 1/22/2017 at 5:53 PM, NBooth said:

I found the movie about a half-hour too long--but (unlike other Scorsese flicks) that extra thirty minutes actually helped in some ways, since Rotriguez's journey is so grueling. It's a way of getting us, as the audience, to feel a similar sense of weariness.

I totally agree, but the weariness for me felt just fight, and not because the film was too long. I know I’m in the minority on this one. If anything, I think the film could have given us even more time after the climactic fumie scene, though I wouldn’t have wanted the film as a whole to be any longer. This was one of the shortest-feeling 2.5+ hour films I’ve ever seen, I think. I thought it was very well-paced. I felt engaged the entire time; quality reinforced by quantity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2017 at 2:13 PM, StephenM said:

 

On 1/29/2017 at 5:44 AM, NBooth said:

I'd be able to take critiques like this more seriously if they at least pretended to grapple with the fact that Silence is a Japanese novel. Not that the movie is dependent on the book for its interpretation--but it does, one would think, modify how one reads the movie (for instance, the Son/sun pun that the author here points out has its origin, though it does not appear verbatim, on page 148 of the English translation of Silence).

I saw that article, too, and thought it was terrible!  They get a literature professor to review the movie in one the 2-3 most important book review publications in the country, and she barely acknowledges the movie is even based on a book??  Not only has she not read the book, she doesn't appear to have done any other research on the story or its historical background, adding in all sorts of assertions about colonialism that have very little to do with the movie.  If she had a real historical knowledge of the period and was critiquing both film and novel on their depiction of historical colonial and missionary activity, that would be one thing, but she makes all sorts of assumptions and anachronistic assertions that tell you she doesn't know what she's talking about.  She talks as if the priests were sent by the Portuguese political authorities.  Is Kichijiro really treated as a "running joke"?  Were the priests really thinking about their own "whiteness," and was their any "homoeroticism" about Rodrigues's "attachment to his fellow priests"?  

More offensive is this sentence and the points that follow it: "Scorsese thus attempts to give Catholicism a philosophical gravity that its flattened popular versions often lack."  Because Catholicism doesn't have any natural philosophical gravity built on 2000 years of thought/debate/theological structuring (fed by several of the greatest minds the world has ever seen) and laying the foundation for the Western intellectual tradition which she is writing from/within or anything.

 

Re: Silence as a white savior narrative in “White Men on a Mission”.

I have little sympathy for “white savior” arguments of this kind. Claims that this movie was reductive and culturally oblivious are more descriptive of the reviewer. She refuses to deeply engage with the film and chooses (inadvertently?) to conflate whiteness with Christianity and so find what isn’t there. But I don’t think that any time a “white” character tries to do something kind for a person of color qualifies as “white savior”.

Don’t get me wrong. I find white savior narratives very problematic, but this film isn’t one. If anything the film critiques that narrative.

I think it is telling that this movie was hated so much by someone who has rejected Catholicism and is a self-defined cynic who believes she has nothing significant to confess. It’s ironic that some Christians dislike the film because they think it condones apostasy whereas those who the Church would consider apostate hate the film because it valorizes feeling “guilt” over one’s sins,  although not even sure that’s accurate regarding the film.

This essay by Greg Wolfe, which I don’t think anyone posted here, does a great job explaining the missionary aspect of the film, and why it is absolutely not a “white savior” narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2016 at 6:06 PM, Anders said:

Has anyone else watched the earlier adaptation of Endo's book? It's directed by Masahiro Shinoda, whose film PALE FLOWER is a favourite of mine. I'm curious.

I just ordered this DVD through Inter Library Loan—Chinmoku is its Japanese title—but it looks like it’s on YouTube as well.

I look forward to watching it to compare when I get a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2017 at 5:32 PM, John Drew said:

"What would his people back home want if they ever learned just how far from them he'd really gone? He broke from them and then he broke from himself. I'd never seen a man so broken up and ripped apart..."  Capt. Willard - APOCALYPSE NOW

SPOILERS AHEAD

A lot of thoughts went through my mind last night while watching (experiencing) Silence.  But, for some reason, I kept coming back to this line from Apocalypse Now.   I don't think I've read any comparisons yet between these two films, but I believe they share much in common.  The line above not only applies to what Father Rodriguez finds when finally confronted with the man who once was Father Ferreira, but also with what the Dutch trader finds with the man who was once Father Rodriguez.  I hope to have more thoughts later, but this film is still percolating.

This is interesting connection. I’d be interested to hear more of your thoughts. What other similarities did you mean?

I’ve seen a couple comparisons in reviews to Apocalypse Now, but nothing really beyond the common European/-American on a quest in a hostile Asian country to find a fallen “great man” who has “gone native.” The analogy breaks down for me pretty quickly though because I think American Cold War military interventionism is rather unlike Jesuit missionary work. And I actually thought the film contrasted Ferreira and Rodrigues at the end.

The film I thought most resonated with Silence was The Mission. Both are about Jesuit missionaries and their spiritual responses to state violence. Both have some amazing scenes of natural beauty (including the environment being weaponized as a tool of martyrdom). Both challenged me spiritually. Silence probably more so, and it’s a better film, but The Mission was a formative film for me in thinking through my faith when I first saw it freshman year of college (It was also formative for me in helping me use the process of “discerning” a film as a spiritual exercise.)

Silence seems to me to be as concerned with the Japanese Christians (and Christianity in Japan) as it is about its protagonist. Far more concerned than Apocalypse Now is about Vietnam or the Vietnamese or The Mission is about the Guarani. (I disagree with the various reviews that say Scorsese or the story is ultimately uninterested in Japanese culture or characters.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2017 at 0:58 PM, Joel Mayward said:

My review, in which I tried something a bit different--writing from the perspective of Kichijiro in the spirit of Ignatian contemplation.

I really appreciated this review and others that emphasize how central Kichijiro is to the film, and how much we viewers can identify with him.

Another is this article on Kichijiro and Rodrigues as typological Peter and Judas figures.

***SPOILERS FOLLOW***

But I disagree with the author’s belief that at the end “Rodrigues has emerged not as Christ to Kichijiro’s Judas, but as Judas himself.” It seems to me the true Judas figure is Ferreira, who apostatized but then despaired and lost connection with true faith. Kichijiro is like Peter as denier who repents, yes, but Rodrigues is, too. He maintains his faith, even if it’s in a different form. I thought the film’s final shot was a brilliant portrayal of the line from the book “even if he [Rodrigues] was betraying them [other priests; the Church], he was not betraying his Lord. He loved him now in a different way from before.” But the film shot even seems to rule out the potential interpretation that Rodrigues is just trying to self-justify his apostasy.

I don’t think it’s correct that Rodrigues never seeks penance/reconciliation either. When he’s under house arrest and Kichijiro comes to him seeking confession and absolution, Rodrigues can confess to him that he fell, he failed. As many others have noted, once he’s reached that point of humility, once he’s emptied of his pride, he can hear Christ’s voice from the silence, that God never abandoned him and suffers with him. (I think that’s much less controversially an authentic hearing of God’s voice than in the earlier fumie scene, though again that’s up for interpretation. I think the novel makes it more believably God’s voice, where the voice comes from the image.) 

In the end, Kichijiro acts as the church to Rodrigues, which keeps him from Judas-like despair or true apostasy. Kichijiro not only hears Rodrigues’ confession; I also believes that he reinstates Rogrigues as a priest just as Christ reinstated Peter. Kichijiro calls on Rodrigues to take up his vocation as a priest again by hearing confession. In this case, it’s not the Great Shepherd delegating the care for feeding the sheep to Peter (as Rodrigues imagines himself earlier in the film, if I remember). It’s the “sheep,” Kichijiro, knowing he needs the Great Shepherd, begging the doubting hired hand Rodrigues to do his duty and feed him. (I refer to John 10:12-14 as well as John 21). Kichijiro and Rodrigues might not have been able to follow Christ the slain lamb as well as Ichizo and Mokichi, but they he can still be a life-line of faith to each other, the voice of Christ spoken through the fallible church, still members of the flock even as they find themselves outside the fold. (It’s implied we can add Rogrigues’ wife as well...wherever two or three are gathered…)  Furthermore, in John 21, Jesus tells Peter that when he is older “someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go” indicating that he will die as a martyr. Though Rodrigues’ failure means he wasn’t martyred per se, Jesus’ words apply to his situation as well. And I’d argue that if Rodrigues hadn’t apostatized, he’d have “done the right thing for the wrong reason,” which was (according to T.S. Eliot) also the temptation of Thomas Becket before his martyrdom.

On the other hand, I don’t mean to ignore the negative side of the ambiguity over Rodrigues’ apostasy, but I think this ambiguity itself is Biblical. Contra the Christian critics who want unambiguous affirmations of team Christianity in film, there is ambiguity about Peter within the Gospels. In John, he’s clearly reinstated. But Christian biblical scholar Robert Gundry has convincingly argued in Peter—False Disciple and Apostate According to Saint Matthew…well, the title says it all! But in my experience most Christians (including too often myself) aren’t interested in reading the Bible this closely or letting it truly challenge their assumptions about their own faith, so I’m not surprised by the lackluster Christian responses to this film, just a little disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob Z wrote:
: The film I thought most resonated with Silence was The Mission. Both are about Jesuit missionaries and their spiritual responses to state violence. Both have some amazing scenes of natural beauty (including the environment being weaponized as a tool of martyrdom). Both challenged me spiritually.

And both films co-star Liam Neeson!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0