Silence (Martin Scorsese)

bnt

Official trailer:

It's an adaptation of Shusaku Endo's 1966 book of that name, about two Portuguese Christian missionaries (Adam Driver & Andrew Garfield) searching for their missing mentor (Liam Neeson) in 17th century Japan. Suffice to say that things do not go quite as they hoped ... :eek:

MfMan

Do hope Garfield doesn't drag this one down; very weak actor IMHO, seems to usually come across as self-pitying.

Looper007

MfMan wrote: »

Do hope Garfield doesn't drag this one down; very weak actor IMHO, seems to usually come across as self-pitying.

Disagree, think that's a little unfair. I think with the right project the guy is a very good actor, he was fantastic in The Social Network and Red Riding TV Series. Also he's brilliant in Mel Gibson's new film Hacksaw Ridge and I thought he was a excellent Spider-Man but sadly his films didn't follow his lead. He was amazing in Boy A, Never Let Me Go and underrated 99 Homes. He's a pretty talented actor imo.

Looking forward to this, with Liam Neeson leaving his action granddad films behind him and doing what he does best. Also Adam Driver, who is another good up and coming actor. I seem to remember this was supposed to Daniel Day Lewis and Benico Del Toro, now that would have been amazing.

pixelburp

I only presume Garlfield is the lead here because DiCaprio wasn't available

But hey, a new Scorsese film is always a bonus to any year; seems a more straightforward thriller after the slightly divisive Wolf of Wall Street.

johnny_ultimate

Having watched the original adaption recently, I felt it was a confident take on the novel. Some magnificent scenes, but also felt there was potential for a more ambitious take on the source material. So I'm sure there is the capacity for another take on Silence, although have to say the trailer makes it look like a reasonably straightforward take on the material. Wait and see - Scorsese has made worthwhile remakes before, although this has less room for manouvering than The Departed. Looking forewarn to it anyway, even I fear the novel and previous adaptation may have unavoidably dulled my response.

Outlaw Pete

Have a spare ticket for tonight's Premiere at the Savoy if anyone is about.

Starts at 7pm though... can leave it at box office for whoever can make it.

mystic86

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Have a spare ticket for tonight's Premiere at the Savoy if anyone is about.

Starts at 7pm though... can leave it at box office for whoever can make it.

I am absolutely disgusted that I missed this!! how was it??

johnny_ultimate

Mixed feelings about this one. It is almost certainly the most austere film from a major Hollywood director in some years, in no rush to get to its conclusion. It is so patient and somber that it's equal parts refreshing and frustrating.

Visually it holds its own with Shinoda's gorgeous version. Here the Japanese landscapes and interiors are beautiful but ominous, in the first half of the film shrouded in a mist that suits the sense of danger and uncertainty. Some shots are brilliantly evocative, although there's a couple of crash zooms and fast pans that feel like they've awkwardly crept in from a more traditional Scorsese joint. The sound design is suitably minimalist: the score whispered, with - appropriately - extreme silences the most powerful punctuation marks. Garfield and Driver are mostly solid, although Neeson owns in his few scenes. Great to see Shinya Tsukamoto in a high profile film. Unsurprisingly, there are a couple of individual sequences realised with more intensity and credibility than the straightforward original (although that film's best scene is not replicated here, probably for the best).

While the artistic bonafides are rarely in dispute, the film nonetheless boasts a number of strange decisions and quirks that ultimately frustrate. A few bits of comedy offer welcome relief in a deathly serious story, but one silly moment involving a Japanese official is distractingly bizarre, as if from a different film altogether. The editing has that sense, common in recent Scorsese, of randomly jumping - scenes may play out in agonising real-time until randomly and awkwardly they don't. That worked fine in a film as purposely unstable as Shutter Island, less so here. A key climactic and thematic moment

when the 'silence' is finally broken

is borrowed from the book, but doesn't even remotely work in cinematic form. And the extended epilogue is misguided, full of false endings that have nothing on the more subtle and ambiguous closing moments of the original adaptation (over-egged endings a strangely common weakness in many passion projects).

There's a problem with the material that is most obvious here than previous versions: the situations, predicaments and conflicts can be immensely frustrating if you're not religious. Certainly it can be appreciated more 'academically', but there's something about this take - perhaps the way it stresses the villainous (to the point of comical) nature of the Japanese officials and the almost absurd goodness of the peasant believers - that makes it slightly harder to take. Scorsese also arguably overplays some of the torture scenes. Still, the experience of Rodrigues is well realised for the most part, with a moral and spiritual complexity that can be appreciated by even us godless folk

even if one wishes he would just step on the darn fumie already

Outlaw Pete

mystic86 wrote: »

I am absolutely disgusted that I missed this!! how was it??

It was decent enough but no stars in attendance (that I saw anyway) and so I wouldn't be all that bothered about missing it .

As for the film itself, Johnny's review there is pretty much spot on.

The first half dragged by and you could tell people were fidgety, laughing at parts of the film which weren't funny by design but in isolation they were. Course when you're watching a film you should be seeing a scene in isolation and that about sums up the film really, as it's very difficult to really get lost in it. It's quite monotonous tbh.

I enjoyed the last hour mostly as I felt we were finally getting the film which the first 80 minutes or so had been building too... but that sort of fizzled out also and in the end it all seemed lackluster for me. Performances were all excellent I thought but it's just a good story not very well told.

Shame as I was really looking forward to it.

troyzer

So I just got back from seeing Silence. I'm not going to give a review here but it's a very engrossing, challenging movie and I'd encourage people to go and see it.

I would love to know if there are any particularly strong Catholics or maybe just Christians generally have seen it and what impact it might have had? I came at this movie as an atheist and although I think it's a masterpiece, I can't help but feel a religious person might have gotten more out of it.

Gwynplaine

Going to see this at 5 today. Looking forward to it. I love really long movies.
McDonald's on the way home. Sweet.

quadrifoglio verde

troyzer wrote: »

So I just got back from seeing Silence. I'm not going to give a review here but it's a very engrossing, challenging movie and I'd encourage people to go and see it.

I would love to know if there are any particularly strong Catholics or maybe just Christians generally have seen it and what impact it might have had? I came at this movie as an atheist and although I think it's a masterpiece, I can't help but feel a religious person might have gotten more out of it.

I've been trying to convince my god fearing mother to go watch it.

Personally thought it was too long and repetitive in parts. Like if they chopped half an hour off it you wouldn't miss out on anything important.

However at the same time, Garfield's performance was excellent and I wonder if it would have felt so good had it been half an hour shorter

Mr_Muffin

Went to see this this evening.

Definitely one of the most boring movies i have ever watched. I stuck it out until the end (which was quite an achievement considering about 40% of people at the showing left) but i wish now i had left sooner.

Garfields performance is top class and is probably the only redeeming aspect of the movie. I'm not sure what else to say really apart from to make sure you bring a pillow with you if you are in any way tired.

pumpkin4life

Fùck lads, I really wanted to enjoy this. From reading the description, I was expecting some sort of Apocalypse Now, journey into evil/madness/artsy smartzy kind of set-up.

Unfortunately, despite the direction and the casting which are mostly savage out, it's just a flat out dull movie. As Johnny said above, some of the movie has this weird Wolf of Wall street style editing, which is a bit of a wtf tbh. That movie's a breakneck speed thing, so it works. This, not so much.

The other problem is is the religious faith being questioned thing. Personally, I don't think this movie goes flat out enough/dark enough and while Garfield is a fine actor, I don't think he can quite carry it.

It's a film I admire, for its originality and for its "director being able to do what the fùck he wants" kind of vibe/aura, but for fùcks sake, this was just boring fùcking twaddle.

And this is coming from a lad who thinks a movie which had long scenes of a bunch of twenty somethings singing in a van was one of the best movies of 2016.

Too bad.

troyzer

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

I've been trying to convince my god fearing mother to go watch it.

Personally thought it was too long and repetitive in parts. Like if they chopped half an hour off it you wouldn't miss out on anything important.

However at the same time, Garfield's performance was excellent and I wonder if it would have felt so good had it been half an hour shorter

I don't know what you could edit out without making the movie worse. Garfield was pretty good but his accent at times definitely slipped into Scottish.

troyzer

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Fùck lads, I really wanted to enjoy this. From reading the description, I was expecting some sort of Apocalypse Now, journey into evil/madness/artsy smartzy kind of set-up.

Unfortunately, despite the direction and the casting which are mostly savage out, it's just a flat out dull movie. As Johnny said above, some of the movie has this weird Wolf of Wall street style editing, which is a bit of a wtf tbh. That movie's a breakneck speed thing, so it works. This, not so much.

The other problem is is the religious faith being questioned thing. Personally, I don't think this movie goes flat out enough/dark enough and while Garfield is a fine actor, I don't think he can quite carry it.

It's a film I admire, for its originality and for its "director being able to do what the fùck he wants" kind of vibe/aura, but for fùcks sake, this was just boring fùcking twaddle.

And this is coming from a lad who thinks a movie which had long scenes of a bunch of twenty somethings singing in a van was one of the best movies of 2016.

Too bad.

I agree on Garfield, I disappointed when Garfield and Driver separated and it followed Garfield instead. Driver is just such a superior actor in everywhere and would have been much more capable of carrying the movie. I can see why you thought it was boring, I did too at times. But I think the slow pace ultimately serves the movie.

pumpkin4life

troyzer wrote: »

I agree on Garfield, I disappointed when Garfield and Driver separated and it followed Garfield instead. Driver is just such a superior actor in everywhere and would have been much more capable of carrying the movie. I can see why you thought it was boring, I did too at times. But I think the slow pace ultimately serves the movie.

Yeah. Same thing I had with The Revenant. Tom Hardy was way more interesting than Di Caprio. If Silence:

1: Lost half a hour, mainly in the first 80 minutes or so.
2: Followed Driver/had Driver in the main role.
3: Focused on the actual point (ok, plot point) of the movie more (Neeson) rather than the other excursions with all the Japanese peasants.

It would have hit the spot a lot more imo.

troyzer

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Yeah. Same thing I had with The Revenant. Tom Hardy was way more interesting than Di Caprio. If Silence:

1: Lost half a hour, mainly in the first 80 minutes or so.
2: Followed Driver/had Driver in the main role.
3: Focused on the actual point of the movie more (Neeson) rather than the other excursions with all the Japanese peasants.

It would have hit the spot a lot more imo.

I don't think Neeson was the point of the movie. The struggle and renewal of Garfield's faith was. I wonder how much the book was based on Dante and his journey through Hell guided by Virgil (Neeson).

pumpkin4life

I got that and its an interesting topic, but that could have been focused more around Neeson. Like the way in Apocalypse right now, Willard's questions about the functionality and the justification of the Vietnam war are based around what Kurtz is and what he has done. Maybe more of a focus on the journey to get to him.

Neeson's brilliant in it though.

Looper007

Well that was one of the most gruelling and bleak films I've seen in a long time. Has Scorsese made a bleaker film then this and that's saying something. Definitely this is a passion project and I doubt many die hard Scorsese fans will be quoting this or having posters of Silence on their walls. It's such a bleak film I came out of the film emotional drained. Probably the most un-Scorsese film since The Last Temptation Of Christ.

Andrew Garfield was amazing in this, as was Liam Neeson in the Smaller role as Father Ferreira (Daniel Day Lewis was signed on to play him but dropped out), he's only in the film 10 minutes at most and he leaves his mark. Yosuke Kubozuka as Kichijiro was excellent, as was Shinya Tsukamoto (a cult director)as the Christian villager Mokichi

his death is probably the most tragic been drowned and crucified

(actually three cast members from the classic Ichi The Killer, were in this Tadanobu Asano as the Interpreter (excellent) and Sabu). Adam Driver sadly isn't given too much to do after a hour, which is a shame. Javier Bardem in a little cameo too.

It's not a film for everyone, anyone going in expecting fast cuts, a amazing soundtrack and fast paced film like most Scorsese work better be warned, this is one slow movie. I can imagine this been released on Criterion Collection and would make a great. double bill with Last Temptation. Probably my favourite Scorsese film since Casino.

Shelga

I saw this last week, agree with most of the reviews here. It's not terrible, but plodding and repetitive. I don't think most people, whether religious or not, will be able to identify with the central conflict- what's the big deal about stepping on a slab to save people?! And I didn't like it when Adam Driver unexpectedly disappeared halfway through, had thought it was a two hander throughout.

Liam Neeson was great in it although still sounded like he was from Ballymena, like he does in all his films really

I thought his segment at the end was well done, when he was explaining to Andrew Garfield why Christianity would not take root in Japan, and that he was being arrogant in comparing himself to Jesus. Thought the same thing for the first 2 hours, leave the Japanese alone FFS!

The Japanese leaders were evil, but yet well-intentioned at the same time, liked the nuance in them.

Basically the trailer was good, but sitting through the whole 2 hour 40 minute film didn't really improve my life or make me think too much.

Mr E

A friend of mine wanted to go to this last night, so I went too.

I had a long day and went to the gym after work, so I was fully expecting to snooze during this. I was surprised to find it very engrossing.

Having said that, if they'd kept it under 2 hours, it would have been a much better movie.

I loved the scenes with Rodrigues and the Inquisitor, and later with Rodrigues and Ferreira.
Garfield was really excellent, and the last shot of the movie made me smile too.

Challenging but worthwhile. I'm glad I saw it.

wylo

Saw this tonight, with zero expectations other than the fact that I'm a scrosese fan (but not a biased one).

I can't say I can agree with a lot of posts here. I was honestly blown away by it. The pacing was amazing. The lack of soundtrack made some of the sadder and more horrific scenes all the more real and hard to watch. And I knew Scorsese was capable of something different anyway (look at shutter island).

But the main plot I loved too and the added struggle the main character went through. I thought he delivered that with perfect timing and authenticity. How important faith was to these people, or to pretty much most people across the world during those times. It's a reminder of such a different world.

Top marks from me!

Arghus

For whom it may concern - Massive feature on Scorsese in this month's Sight and Sound, it must run to about twenty pages, with an extensive interview. The most in depth coverage of a single director talking about their work I've ever seen them run.

Pablo_

Well I'm certainly not a movie buff, but liked this movie for the story it was originally telling. I came out expecting great discussions about Christianity and the Jesuit missionss/'conquests'. Alas, my companions in the cinema all thought it was complete tripe. So here are my thoughts on it in short:

Garfields Rodrigues: The youthful and arrogant European, with no respect or understanding of the country he was going to. He mentions 'the truth' but did not think once about how a Buddhist might see it. He is a tough character and you can root for his conviction, he is a symbol of the misplaced devotion of missionaries, but his self pity and teary eyed lament of his fellow 'Christians' in Japan is adolescently selfish.

Kichijiro: A humorous take on the idea of redemption and absolution by confession. Like Neeson mentions about Japan in general, they took in the Christian message in their own subjective way ( Son of god / 'Sun' of God etc) and Kichijiro was fully convinced he just needed to confess and then just go back to being Kichijiro. His self preservation was almost admirable at times.

Japan: During the Edo period, with foreign policy reacting to European traders ( and their missionary cargo) by trying to create an insular Japan, of course it was going to try and flush out Christianity. Catholicism had its own inquisitions at home after all. The Japanese in this period seem enlightened compared having studied Christianity and able to discuss its doctrines. While you can find lots of literature from Catholic theologians nowadays on Buddhist-Catholic dialogue, Garfields Rodrigues was impervious to Buddhism; again, a childish ignorance ( almost innocence ) Europeans suffered at the time. Neesons Ferrera was a 21st century man, knowing well Buddhism ( not sure if Shinto has any place in this ) was the philosophy and religion accepted and studied in Japan, and why try put a round peg in a square hole.

Overall, I thought the movie was a slow discussion about Christianity's 'conquest' and how it has taken until now for it to grow up and realise it has destroyed so much just to say it was right ( like the immature Rodriques). It was refreshing to see Japan was able to send it packing and retain its own identity at the time.

Slydice

Gave it a watch. Thought it was done well.

I think it felt like it showed aspects of Japan in a way I can only remember being done by Japanese filmakers in the past.

Potential-Monke

I went to see this about a week ago. I don't know exactly what i was expecting, but it definitely wasn't this. I found this to be up there with Donnie Darko as one of the worst films i've ever had the displeasure of watching. It bored like no other film has before. I was going to walk out half way through, but my curiosity got the better of me and i stayed until the end. How i wish i hadn't. Terrible film, with what i'm sure are some hidden meanings and some other artsy stuff that i couldn't even be bothered trying to figure out. It was just boring exposition after exposition, mixed with some pretty intense (i'll give it that) killings. It just dragged on and on and on, and felt like it was going nowhere.

And in the end, it went nowhere. Priest 2 dead, villagers dead/silenced, priest 1 becomes that which he went to find...

Again, i don't know what exactly i was expecting, but a 3 hour Christian advertisement was not what i expected. Unless you like your films with hidden meanings, i'd steer well clear of this. Definitely one of the worst films i've ever seen. 1/10 (for the odd killing)

Mr_Muffin

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I went to see this about a week ago. I don't know exactly what i was expecting, but it definitely wasn't this. I found this to be up there with Donnie Darko as one of the worst films i've ever had the displeasure of watching. It bored like no other film has before. I was going to walk out half way through, but my curiosity got the better of me and i stayed until the end. How i wish i hadn't. Terrible film, with what i'm sure are some hidden meanings and some other artsy stuff that i couldn't even be bothered trying to figure out. It was just boring exposition after exposition, mixed with some pretty intense (i'll give it that) killings. It just dragged on and on and on, and felt like it was going nowhere.

And in the end, it went nowhere. Priest 2 dead, villagers dead/silenced, priest 1 becomes that which he went to find...

Again, i don't know what exactly i was expecting, but a 3 hour Christian advertisement was not what i expected. Unless you like your films with hidden meanings, i'd steer well clear of this. Definitely one of the worst films i've ever seen. 1/10 (for the odd killing)

I agree. Many people walked out when i was there - i persevered in hope but just like you it all ended in disappointment.

Usually these type of movies have some 'hidden message' or make you think about the subject as hand - this didn't. There was no hidden meaning, it was just a bad movie.

Potential-Monke

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

Usually these type of movies have some 'hidden message' or make you think about the subject as hand - this didn't. There was no hidden meaning, it was just a bad movie.

Oh, it wasn't just me thinking it was some artsy hidden meaning film then. Good to know. I never (usually) pick up on them, so it's nice to know that i wasn't wrong in thinking it was just shite then! I re-watched Goodfellas in the cinema the other night, and i can't fathom how he can go from pure brilliance to absolute tripe... I'll be extremely cautious of his future films.

Arcade_Tryer

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I'll be extremely cautious of his future films.

I've been extremely dubious about him since the embarrassment that was The Wolf of Wall Street.

Potential-Monke

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

I've been extremely dubious about him since the embarrassment that was The Wolf of Wall Street.

And i'm quite the opposite, as i thought that was a fantastic film! Different strokes and all that.

Did you smash it

On the Cruxifiction scene in the water. Sure the ropes weren’t tied tightly at all. When one of the characters died his hand just fell out of the bind. Strange kind of a quasi plot hole.

branie2

It was very good