Yes No Maybe So: "Silence"
Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:00PM Each and every year I pray that we will have ample time to CONSIDER each Oscar nominee. But one film always wants to emerge so late in the game that the world (i.e. Oscar fanatics, critics, list-makers, and awards voters) will be rushed to judgment.
I pray but I'm lost. Am I just praying to silence?"
It worked out well for the late arrivals last year (The Force Awakens and The Revenant which between them nabbed 17 Oscar nominations and 3 wins) so will it be as successful for Rogue One and Silence this year which we believe will be the last two movies to screen and which will dutifully fill the exact same slots of Star Wars Movie and Brutal All Male Historical Epic.
The Silence trailer is here so we may now finally judge for ourselves based on 2 minutes and 13 seconds instead of all of the rumors. The Trailer and our Yes No Maybe So™ breakdown after the jump...
YES
• That lush head of hair on Andrew Garfield. Even distressed, wet, or malnourished its proof of God's existence.
• The costumes and production design by Oscar favorite Dante Ferretti (nominated in both categories the last time he did double duty for Scorsese with Kundun) look deeply watchable
• Scorsese's tinkering doesn't always solve a movie's problems -- lord knows he took forever on Gangs of New York and it was still one of his worst -- but even his worst pictures are generally quite worth watching.
• It will be nice to see Liam Neeson challenged again given how long its been since he had a role that wasn't "You've done a crime. Now I shall kill you!"
• It certainly appears EPIC and that holds its own special appeal as movies go.
NO
• Brutality. Yay, crucifixions just in time for the holidays
• Scorsese's religiosity is generally somewhat anguished and therefore of interest. On the other hand Christians feeling persecuted is one of the most annoying things about the United States. The religious right is constantly harping on this in our country despite the fact that they're the only religion at home that tries to force itself and its idealogies and rules on the public at large, no matter what their neighbors believe. So who is being persecuted, exactly? Will a whole long film about actual persecutions of Christians be agonizing to sit through as it will only reiterate their bizarre fact-free belief that they're always being fed to the lions in the 21st century? (FWIW: I am Christian but modern Christianity, especially the Evangelical variety, is personally revolting to me and appears to bear very little relation to Christ or his teachings. If Christ returned, you can bet they'd be the first group to crucify him again for his liberal ways and "inclusivity". The idea of loving everyone and caring for the sick is anathema to the hard right.
• The trailer plays like a taught action-packed thriller with is speedy editing and suspense music. This must be false advertising given the reported length of the movie and its subject matter.
MAYBE SO
• Looooove the shot of Adam Driver staring at an out of focus Garfield and Japanese man in the foreground but what are the relationships like in this all man movie which will 100% not pass the Bechdel Test.
• Those accents on Adam Driver (hmmm) and Andrew Garfield (yikes) sound suspicious in these short aural doses. Let's hope they play better in context. They are both terrific actors but one can't help but wonder if this sort of movie might have been better served without famous franchise faces from Star Wars, Spider-Man, and Batman pulling us out of its highly specific 17th century reality.
• This trailer gives us not one line of dialogue from Liam Neeson so we have no idea what's in store there. Will he deliver on the new challenge?
• The trailer also skimps on highlighting the fine Japanese actor Tadanobu Asano (of Mongol, Thor, and Ichi the Killer fame) who plays the interpreter. Does he not have a big part like we thought he would?
• Given the absolute depressing state of the real world when it comes to religiosity / politics / violence who is going to want to see this. And at Christmas no less!? We shall see.
Are you a 'yes no or maybe so'? I am eager to see it but I am definitely a maybe so as I am weary of Scorsese's inabiilty to make movies any shorter than too long. Also I haven't loved one of his movies since 2006.
Reader Comments (51)
Looks like just the right amount of testesterone to sweep! :(
Tadanobu Asano shows up very late in the film, he's part is important but not nearly showy or meaty enough compares to Yôsuke Kubozukas's, or even Shin'ya Tsukamoto (the one in the out of focus shot with Garfield), who only has a few scenes but made huge impression. Neeson delivered and is the only real BSA contender from the film. Driver is mainly in the first hour of the film, and neither he or Garfield sounded like Portuguese.
White people suffering in a strange land. It will sweep the Oscars!
Christians wallowing in their persecutions? Is this just high-falutin' I'm Not Ashamed? And I find Catholicism every bit as obnoxious as Evangelism. What the fuck were these guys doing in Japan in the first place?
I haven't LOVED (as in A- or above) one of his since earlier than that, probably 1995 (yes, I kind of love Casino), though I have B+ liked a few (The Aviator, Hugo, The Wolf of Wall Street) after that point. That having been said? I'm probably a no. Even ten years ago? MAYBE. Now? NO! That dialogue, that accent, that writer? Yeah. Not seeing it.
Now, as far as Garfield goes? I want to love that he's being thrown out of franchise culture. But he chose to do both this AND Hacksaw Ridge in pretty much the same film year. Both set primarily in Japan. Both about persecuted mega Christians. Both doing both character and accent work. That doesn't speak that highly about whose making the choices for this career, whether it's Garfield or his agent.
I'm seeing this mainly because it's Scorsese. Even though I fear that I may be hypocritical because I'm not crazy about films with a white savior complex.
Maybe So. Nothing made me say "yummie" or "eww."
Lol at the "You've done a crime. Now I shall kill you!" comment. I'm glad I've seen none of those movies.
Definitely no, but then of course it will be nominated for a bunch of stuff so I'll have to sit through yet another White Men Movie. I felt the same watching this trailer as I did when The Revenant came out - how many more 3-Hour Long White Men Suffering Movies will I have to suffer through in my life.
I'm a big Scorsese fan, but I have pretty low expectations for this one, which the trailer did nothing to dispel. I have the feeling that after he shot the thing, he realized he had a dud, and is trying to piece together something watchable in the editing room, which is why it is taking so damn long to come out. Thankfully, the editor is the phenomenal Thelma Schoonmaker, so perhaps she can work some magic.
The film, on its own merits, looks very up my alley, not to mention it's a Scorsese picture, so I'll definitely check it out. Maybe i'll be pleasantly surprised.
To all the naysayers in here, have you actually read the novel Silence? If not, you do realize it was written by a Japanese man, yes?
Glad I'm not the only one. I'm a big, fat, No !
All this male suffering is giving me flashbacks to The Revenant.
Which is not a compliment. No thanks.
I was a big fan of Scorsese's work but since Casino it's like he is allergic to women.
I'm sure the production values will be excellent but I've already seen this film before.
Why do we need "The Mission" set in Japan? It's totally been done.
What Ken said.
What Ken said.
@LadyEdith so I guess you're gonna choose to ignore movies such as Bringing Out The Dead, The Aviator, Shutter Island, and Hugo which all featured several women in them. God, this place's hateboner for Scorsese never fails to make me roll my eyes.
I'm not even white BTW, so I'm not biased at all when I say I'm getting really tired of movies like these being reduced to simply "White Male Suffering" by the cine-police. It's lazy and frankly ignorant. The novel this is based on is one of my favorites and I for one can't wait to watch it. Whatever.
I'm not even white BTW, so I'm not biased at all when I say I'm getting really tired of movies like these being reduced to "White Male Suffering" movies by the cine-police. It's lazy and frankly ignorant. The novel this is based on is one of my favorites and I for one can't wait to watch it. Whatever.
Ken: 1. That novel was 50 years ago. 2. Norbit had Eddie Murphy (writer, producer, and multiple characters) making basically all the decisions. Just because someone is of a certain background doesn't automatically mean the result of their work will actually be progressive. Yes, citing Norbit IS an extreme example. 3. Not everything that works in print, works in film. (That works in reverse, too. Fight Club is, frankly, an average novel that became an amazing movie while Ulysses is a great novel that probably didn't work as a movie.) 4. The screenwriter on this is still white, AND is (to me AND the blog runner, at least) associated with Scorsese's low points.
I'm a yes because I see EVERYTHING!
And I'm a yes because of Scorsese, even though I haven't liked any of his movies post 2002, except for Wolf Of Wall Street.
But only looking at the trailer, I'm a Maybe.
A big NO to the accents, both Garfield's and Driver's -
annoying that they speak English when they're not supposed to speak English - that will always be a contrivance of Hollywood movies and I really hate it.
It's a contrivance I've learned to live with, but it's a major pet peeve of mine.
It was annoying in Schindler's List - it was annoying in The Last Temptation Of Christ.
But if you must go with English dialogue, which I know is necessary to attract name/global actors and to get a big budget - then at least drop the silly attempts at accents.
Marie Antoinette (2006) having English dialogue doesn't bother me, for example - because that movie goes all out with the modern music and converse sneakers etc. - that movie was not about realism.
YES to the images and to the score.
I am being dismissive and I'm actually looking forward to this film as a Scorsese picture. But it's amazing how many great films can be reduced to that summary.
Ken: Um...I haven't seen two of those (Bringing Out the Dead and Shutter Island), but in the post Casino Scorsese's I've seen and from what I've heard of Shutter Island? The women are THERE, but the parts are kind of terrible and thin (only Blanchett being great VAGUELY saves her Hepburn), which is more where the "allergic to women" claim likely comes from.
@Ken - We were asked for our opinions & I gave mine. I don't police your opinions & I feel free to express mine. Just because we disagree is no reason to be uncivil.
I grew up on Scorsese - "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" was the 1st film of his I saw in a theatre. (1974) It was from a women's point of view. Scorsese hasn't done one film from a women's point of view since. It's too bad but that is the truth.
My point was that the parts for women in his films since the mid-nighties have grown slighter and less important. (Thanks to @Volvagia for his clarification.)
I also said that I wasn't interested in a tale about "male suffering", which frankly are a very large genre of films. Some of which are brilliant ("Bridge on the River Kwai") and some "The Revenant" which I simply loathed.
Everyone has preferences. Since you loved the book this is based on I sincerely hope that it lives up to all your expectations.
I'm simply saying that I'm not interested.
I don't understand the intense hate The Revenant gets. It's not particularly good, but most Inarritu movies aren't, and for me it's not nearly as bad as Babel or Biutiful.
Anyways, visually Silence looks amazing. The fact it's going to be at least 3 hours long is a big no for me especially since I'm not super interested in the plot, but I'll give it a shot.
The line "the price for your glory is their suffering" has me hopeful. If it's an examination of the homogenizing/destroying of ancient cultures because of the spread of Catholicism, I would be thrilled to see that. I mean I'm going no matter what.
No thanks. I'd rather see something I'll enjoy, and for the better part of the last decade and a half, it hasn't been something with Scorsese's name attached to it.
It's a very effective trailer
Fig: That they even include it makes it seem...Nolany? A master writer and filmmaker working together can imply that, and disgust with those actions, without being THAT on the nose.
I'm going to fucking see this as it just looks incredible.
Even when they're average Scorsese movies always have something interesting about them. I'll be watching this, especially after reading this article. This was a passion project for Scorsese and I'm curious to see where that takes him.
The accents did seem pretty muddled though.
I'm a yes. The visuals are gorgeoussssss. I don't think this is going to win anything because it's far too bleak for our current world/country's climate.
Mainly: I resent the implication that Scorsese could make a movie as terrible as anything in Innaritu's filmography.
I'm feeling everything you put on the NO column. Already a bit annoyed by the movie without even seeing it.
Nat: On the trailer editing: Considering they edited it down to 154 minutes before credits? (Most movies have 5 minutes of credits, so always subtract 5 from runtimes.) I've seen a few movies that keep up a fairly zippy pace (like, say, Avatar or The Dark Knight) that are around that long. The reported 190 minute version probably wouldn't have been, though.
Yassss! Trailer looks breathtaking. You bitches better appreciate Scorsese while he's still around to do work of this caliber. None of you can say a word when the Academy starts awarding Oscars to Brett Ratner and Michael Bay.
What the fuck were these guys doing in Japan in the first place?
Trying to convince people to join their religion. What's wrong with that, exactly?
Maybe so.
Yes: It looks beautiful. Scorsese hires the best technical and craftspeople.
No: I have no sympathy for these characters. They are Western Imperialists, bent on destroying indigenous culture.
It makes me think about Scorsese's love for Mafia stories. Both the Mafia and the Catholic Church as ruling entities are cabals of white men, setting themselves above secular law, keen on meting out punishments and jockeying for power within. Any "transgressions" are violently punished. Women are kept in "their place".
Japan threw out the missionaries to retain their own autonomy.
In the most famous study of what religion modern Japanese follow (Doi), all the correspondents chose more than one answer, saying they followed more than one religion. For them, it was common sense that some religions are best at specific things. Shinto is best for Birth, Christianity for Weddings, Buddhism for Death.
Missionaries don't let you mix and match.
Japan threw out the missionaries to retain their own autonomy.
The Japanese brutally persecuted their own people to retain their own power and belief system's supremacy.
As someone who has read the novel (and also someone who finds the Christian persecution complex and people who rail against "political correctness" to be infuriating), I think you are bit quick to rush to judgment here.
First of all, the main narrative thrust of the film is Garfield and Driver's mission to find their mentor, Liam Neeson who has been rumored to have renounced his faith in the face of a new Japanese political reality that is increasingly hostile to Christians (none of this is a spoiler, since its literally in the plot description blurb on the cover of the book). It's not really about the plight of Jesuit missionaries trying to convert the "savage" non-Western people (to the extent missionary activity happens in the novel its largely Garfield and Driver performing mass for secret Christian communities under siege and without a priest who are hiding them from Japanese authorities).
Second, it is important that this novel was written by a Japanese author. While he was a devout Catholic, the novel continuously undermines Garfield's character's Western arrogance and ignorance of Japanese culture and calls into question the whole missionary movement.
Third, the novel is despairingly intense. While its only about 200 pages long, I can't remember the last time I have read such an emotionally and intellectually intense novel. The way it deals with questions of faith, humanity, culture, etc., even though it does it in a Catholic context (which makes sense since the author was a devout Catholic) is almost unparalleled. That said, I doubt Christians are going to love this film, since its far more complicated and complex and questioning than your typical "Christian persecution" joint like The Passion. After all, this IS the man who made The Last Temptation of Christ.
Finally, I can't really describe what makes the novel so amazing (and also SO PERFECT for Scorsese, who actually wrote a really incisive forward to the current in-print English translation of the novel) without spoiling things, but suffice to say as someone who was worried about this, this trailer made me SUPER excited for the film and I think its going to be a masterpiece. I know I'm a Silence fanboy, but that's how compelling the novel was. At the end of the day, Sllence is ultimately a dark mirror image of the Jesus story, while simultaneously questioning and undermining and poking and prodding at every part of it. I've already said too much, and honestly reading the novel is worth it (its a super fast read once you get into it), but its definitely not what you think based on the trailer.
Also, @ adri, that key issue of Western imperialist arrogance is one of the main issues that Silence (the novel, but I feel like Scorsese would have to also do so, because otherwise whats even the point, and he's on record in the forward to the novel as being attracted to the novel in part because it does that) tries to grapple with. Basically, I trust Scorsese to do this right, and if he does, its not going to be some evil savages persecuting noble Western imperialists situation. It should be far more complex than that.
Scorsese is one of my favorite directors, but this looks....like a misfire. Sorry, but I had to say it. I don't think I'll be paying to see this one. Going to see Moonlight and Loving tomorrow.
A big yes for Neeson's Oscar
Yes, based on the magnificent novel only.
And yes, it's way more complex than evangelization and persecution of Christians. It's much more an existencial piece.
I didn't realize that Silence has been made into a movie before. The 1971 film was directed by Masahiro Shinoda, one of the key figures of Japan's New Wave cinema. The cinematographer was Kasuo Miyagawa, considered one of the world's great cinematographers.
"What the fuck were these guys doing in Japan in the first place?"
"Trying to convince people to join their religion. What's wrong with that, exactly?"
EVERYTHING.
OMG It's a Scorsese movie with men, and about Catholics being prosecuted. Ewwwww WORST MOVIE EVER. FASCISTS!!!!!!!
The Japanese version is here:
Too bad I don't speak Japanese and I can't read the Russian subtitles, but it may be useful to some of you.
@adri This director, Masahiro Shinoda, has directed a lot of movies, but I've seen only Double Suicide, which is terrific.
Yeah, and the cinematographer is a master: Rashomon, Yojimbo, Ugetsu, Floating Weeds...
OMG I want to see it NOW
And one more thing: I'd like to second everything chasgoose said about the novel. It's devastating.
Yes chasgoose you said everything.
1. I like most of Scorsese's film, but this one is a big MAYBE. Too violent and too long!
2. I fully agree with Ulrich. Why the accents in English in so many films if the characters are supposed to be speaking in their native languages? A "neutral" English would be appropriate.
3. I know I can be a bit annoying about grammar here at TFE. From one of the comments: "...about whose making the decisions..." should be "...about who's making the decisions..."
1. I haven't seen the 1971 original, but I have it on my shelf (thank you, Masters of Cinema). Maybe I'll pop it in first.
2. Even if I wasn't looking forward to the film, the trailer was a solid YES and chasgoose's commentary kinda nails why. The trailer itself is more intense than I though.,
3. When Martin Scorsese leaves America, the results are often fascinating (Kundun, Hugo) even if imperfect (Kundun, Hugo).
4. The accent thing is silly, to be honest. I get it, but it's a little cowardly.
@Volvagia
"Both doing both character and accent work."
Not gonna lie, that someone thinks an actor doing two films in a row of "character and accent work" speaks poorly of his choices is a mindboggling proposition.