Martin Scorsese brings us a film which is, in many ways, compelling, beautiful, and spiritually powerful, but ultimately squanders all that by providing a counterfeit Christ
Great review. When I saw the film, I interpreted the “voice of Christ” to be the devil, and Rodriguez’ acceptance of it to be his own breaking point. Then, when we see him dying with a secret cross, it was meant to show that while he broke, inwardly he maintained a small devotion to Christ. I don’t think the film has to be taken as endorsing apostasy in the face of hardship.
Thanks Tobu! I do agree that the film doesn't necessarily have to be taken as endorsing apostasy. If you interpret that voice of "Christ" as the voice of Satan, then the film takes on elements of classic tragedy and we can mourn the downfall of Fr. Rodrigues. It becomes a pretty compelling meditation on pride and the weakness of man, and like I said it is astonishingly well-made and worth watching cinematically.
However, I do think that the filmmakers (and the original author) intend us to take the voice of "Christ" as THE voice of Christ, and since I have a hard time separating authorial intent from the meaning of a work, it ended up falling flat for me. The film can be taken in an orthodox way, but I don't think it was meant in an orthodox way, and as such I wouldn't recommend it unless someone was already very firm in their faith.
At first glance it is not clear how the voice is to be interpreted. However, the subtitles help. As Rodriquez steps on the image, a cock crows (it’s hard to hear but this was written in the subtitles), clearly painting the action as a betrayal. Thus the filmmakers must have believed the voice to be that of Satan.
We read the book this is based on in Dr. Lane’s History of Catholicism in Asia. If I remember correctly he didn’t hear a voice right before he apostatized but rather at the end of the book when he’s living in relative peace and struggling with his choices, so that was a deliberate choice on the part of the filmmakers to put it there.
Thanks Cecilia! I have not read the book, but if that is the case, then I think the book must be much more in tune with Catholic tradition about suffering, repentance, and redemption. Thanks for sharing this insight!
I read the book at a particularly wimpy time in my life, aka just over two months ago because I needed a little courage. Whilst I can appreciate it cinematically, like you said, it most definitely missed the mark. It was like a malaise, an arrest of passion and zeal.
What would God say, really? Death wasn't an option, the closest thing to it would actually be apostasy. The death of pride, of zeal, the peace of your own conscience. The question is, how would this choice fair in the eyes of God who works things out for the good. What good is it that a man who was destined to be a father proceeds to live as a traitor?
In this situation does it all boil down to a sincerity of faith or of witness. I know God knows their heart, there's no doubt they will be united with Christ. Love is the indeed the measure. But what are we to do on this side of heaven? Does Fr. Rodigues' one time act of painful and radical love justify the following decades of denial?
I think the struggle, for those of us who didn't sit well with the ending is, we want to see the courage we don't have be seen in others. But more than that, as Catholics, we reject the idea of faith being purely intellectual or purely emotional - salvation hinges on the flesh. How that works out for Fr. Ferreira and Fr. Rodrigues, I think its that point that truly gave them no peace.
Hi Joe, I loved your review of the movie. It’s a movie that’s very dear to me and led me to read the book as well. I think the ending is deeply Christian as well as Buddhist.
The entire movie Rodriguez seeks a martyrdom similar to Jesus in that he is unafraid to lay down his life for Christ. The Japanese persecutors understand this and so seek to punish him and the other missionaries (ex: Ferrera) in a more psychological way: can you lay down your life as a priest, as a respected member of the Church, for these peasants?
By apostatizing, Rodriguez forfeits his life and reputation as a priest because he can no longer bare the suffering of others. He is ridiculed by the Japanese who see him as a fallen priest, he is surely shunned by the Portuguese Church who receive word of his apostasy; even here in the comments we ridicule him for failing to live up to our standards of Christianity. What we perceive as his weakness is an extreme act of mercy to relieve other’s suffering, which is where the Buddhist and Christian understanding of a priest align. In forfeiting his life he saved it.
As the ending of the movie shows, even at his death he never abandons his faith, but is drawn to a deeper more intimate relationship with Jesus that only he and God know.
If Peter denied Jesus 3 times and became the foundation of the Church then who are we to judge Rodriguez?
I hadn’t thought about it from that perspective. I’m not sure if I agree, but you have given me something to chew on for sure. A better defense of the film’s choice than any other I’ve heard. Thank you.
Great review. When I saw the film, I interpreted the “voice of Christ” to be the devil, and Rodriguez’ acceptance of it to be his own breaking point. Then, when we see him dying with a secret cross, it was meant to show that while he broke, inwardly he maintained a small devotion to Christ. I don’t think the film has to be taken as endorsing apostasy in the face of hardship.
Thanks Tobu! I do agree that the film doesn't necessarily have to be taken as endorsing apostasy. If you interpret that voice of "Christ" as the voice of Satan, then the film takes on elements of classic tragedy and we can mourn the downfall of Fr. Rodrigues. It becomes a pretty compelling meditation on pride and the weakness of man, and like I said it is astonishingly well-made and worth watching cinematically.
However, I do think that the filmmakers (and the original author) intend us to take the voice of "Christ" as THE voice of Christ, and since I have a hard time separating authorial intent from the meaning of a work, it ended up falling flat for me. The film can be taken in an orthodox way, but I don't think it was meant in an orthodox way, and as such I wouldn't recommend it unless someone was already very firm in their faith.
At first glance it is not clear how the voice is to be interpreted. However, the subtitles help. As Rodriquez steps on the image, a cock crows (it’s hard to hear but this was written in the subtitles), clearly painting the action as a betrayal. Thus the filmmakers must have believed the voice to be that of Satan.
PS
I agree that the ending is not a Catholic one.
Saw this movie years ago, and I still don't know what to think of it.
We read the book this is based on in Dr. Lane’s History of Catholicism in Asia. If I remember correctly he didn’t hear a voice right before he apostatized but rather at the end of the book when he’s living in relative peace and struggling with his choices, so that was a deliberate choice on the part of the filmmakers to put it there.
Great review as always, thank you for sharing!
Thanks Cecilia! I have not read the book, but if that is the case, then I think the book must be much more in tune with Catholic tradition about suffering, repentance, and redemption. Thanks for sharing this insight!
I read the book at a particularly wimpy time in my life, aka just over two months ago because I needed a little courage. Whilst I can appreciate it cinematically, like you said, it most definitely missed the mark. It was like a malaise, an arrest of passion and zeal.
What would God say, really? Death wasn't an option, the closest thing to it would actually be apostasy. The death of pride, of zeal, the peace of your own conscience. The question is, how would this choice fair in the eyes of God who works things out for the good. What good is it that a man who was destined to be a father proceeds to live as a traitor?
In this situation does it all boil down to a sincerity of faith or of witness. I know God knows their heart, there's no doubt they will be united with Christ. Love is the indeed the measure. But what are we to do on this side of heaven? Does Fr. Rodigues' one time act of painful and radical love justify the following decades of denial?
I think the struggle, for those of us who didn't sit well with the ending is, we want to see the courage we don't have be seen in others. But more than that, as Catholics, we reject the idea of faith being purely intellectual or purely emotional - salvation hinges on the flesh. How that works out for Fr. Ferreira and Fr. Rodrigues, I think its that point that truly gave them no peace.
Hi Joe, I loved your review of the movie. It’s a movie that’s very dear to me and led me to read the book as well. I think the ending is deeply Christian as well as Buddhist.
The entire movie Rodriguez seeks a martyrdom similar to Jesus in that he is unafraid to lay down his life for Christ. The Japanese persecutors understand this and so seek to punish him and the other missionaries (ex: Ferrera) in a more psychological way: can you lay down your life as a priest, as a respected member of the Church, for these peasants?
By apostatizing, Rodriguez forfeits his life and reputation as a priest because he can no longer bare the suffering of others. He is ridiculed by the Japanese who see him as a fallen priest, he is surely shunned by the Portuguese Church who receive word of his apostasy; even here in the comments we ridicule him for failing to live up to our standards of Christianity. What we perceive as his weakness is an extreme act of mercy to relieve other’s suffering, which is where the Buddhist and Christian understanding of a priest align. In forfeiting his life he saved it.
As the ending of the movie shows, even at his death he never abandons his faith, but is drawn to a deeper more intimate relationship with Jesus that only he and God know.
If Peter denied Jesus 3 times and became the foundation of the Church then who are we to judge Rodriguez?
Anthony,
I hadn’t thought about it from that perspective. I’m not sure if I agree, but you have given me something to chew on for sure. A better defense of the film’s choice than any other I’ve heard. Thank you.
That's how the book seemed too. Well said.