MovieChat Forums > Silence (2017) Discussion > Good Ideas Worth Discussing, Bad Film

Good Ideas Worth Discussing, Bad Film


I'm not a Scorsese fan, and his latest epic ... which I'd never heard of ... didn't change a thing. Obviously intended for December Oscar consideration, it got dumped in January. All two hours and forty-one minutes of it.

But that doesn't mean I don't want to discuss it. Two Portuguese priests in the early 1600's boat to Japan in search of Liam Neeson, last of the big-time Padrés ministering to the shrinking flock. Shrinking because the Honorable Head Inquisitor keeps torturing Christians to death.

Torture, politics -- the usual ensues. A weak, Captain Obvious script and ponderous pacing make for a very long and tortuous (literally) first two hours. I kept waiting for Liam to show up, and he does -- a full two hours in.

We've seen all the formula pics where the one guy or group stands up to THE EVIL MAJORITY and finally wins the day, but not here. He caves, as did Mr. Neeson before him, finally convinced the lives of five innocent bleeding believers suspended over a pit were worth more than some symbolic gesture of faith. If that really happened, then I say, "No shit." Always would have.

Not clear by the credits if we're supposed to believe the central priest really gave up his faith or just kept it well-hidden, as many Japanese Christians did for 200 years. But it's a brave-ass movie for dealing with it honestly -- maybe for the first time.

But Marty, Marty, Marty ...

Your script sucked.
I could have written it better.
For reals.

You're not a screenwriter, and certainly not an actor (see his unfortunate cameo in Taxi Driver). If you must stay in town stick to directing. But honestly, I wish you'd just retire.

Frustrating that such interesting subject matter couldn't have been handled better by such an acclaimed, experienced filmmaker. I want to discuss the ideas with friends but can't justify putting them through 161 minutes of this.

reply

I am impressed, another person who has the courage to say that Scorcese is not the god of film people say he is. I find this movie pretty interesting, but you are right, it is torturously long. It does provoke thought and I like it, but I am only about half-way through it.

I'm finding it hard to take the acting seriously. The lines seem to not go together, as if the got one guy in place and had him say his lines and then switched position. I did like that some of the modern newer actors are actually taking on some of these kinds of roles, and it made me wonder if there was any way someone from the thick of our society has any way of relating to these characters, let alone religion. It seems like most modern actors and "sophisticates" are atheists these days, and often very verbal about it.

reply

I thought it was a good movie and that it delivered on it's key themes and the drama... I didn't finf the script weak at all...

Who cares that we only get to see Neeson teo hours into the film... that's not the point of the film...

I love the way Scorsese handled the spiritual and religious aspects of the movie.. he takes a more neutral point of view than his usual nihilism, which is interesting here as it allows us to consider the ideas of faith and doubt thoughtfully... very restrained... his background of being close to religion shows through...

I'm not sure about the younger cast... Not sure about Garfield's performance here, despite him being such a solid actor... I don't know if they can capture the religiousity properly... he seemed like a contemporary Christian from Western Europe... almost pop culture friendly if it wasn't for all thr torture...

He was a lot better than I expected and the movie "works", but I am left wondering how it would have been if we had a more convincingly religious portrayal by the lead actor, e.g. if this movie was made 40 years ago... I can't think of a young film actor who would be better than Garfield in this role, but I still feel there is another level there...

reply