|
|
Post by drspaceman on Mar 17, 2017 17:45:42 GMT
I thought the movie was pretty critical of the missionaries, implying that they were too selfish to save the lives of the peasants by not apostatizing and also for being used as tools by the colonialists. There really is no difference in the faith of the Japanese guy who continuously apostatizes and Andrew Garfield's character by the end of the movie. I wonder if this movie got ignored by Hollywood during awards season because it shows a country aggressively and violently protecting it's culture and way of life without making them outright villains. but spaceman, its written in the end that the film is dedicated to japanese christians or something like that. and the priests who come to save them are all tortured. and in the end when he dies, he still has the little statue in his body. Yeah, it was the Japanese christians who suffered the most and they were the innocents who were stuck in the middle. The suffering of the priests isn't the same as the suffering of the peasants. The peasants worshipped something they didn't even understand and suffered for no reason. The missionaries suffering is almost considered selfish because they thought of themselves as Christ like figures when being tortured. I just don't think this movie chose a side and I think Scorcese made a pretty balanced movie despite being a christian. |
|
