Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
dda1996a
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#176 Post by dda1996a » Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:22 am

Really? Thats rather surprising as I always viewed the DGA (and the director's branch of most associations) to be the most open to difficult and challenging cinema. Guess I was wrong then.
How close is this to Last Temptation?

User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#177 Post by captveg » Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:12 pm

movielocke wrote:Complex film, Scorsese's methodical approach makes it all worth it.

I was shocked when they wanted to stay and put the lives of the villagers in danger, and from that point I was wondering how the journey of them realizing that their concern with saving their own souls (or becoming glorious martyrs with 'heroic' defiance) was a price that would be paid with the lives and torment of the people they minister.

In the revelation at the end, that the most christian thing to do is to set aside your own love of your own soul and if need be to give up salvation for the sake of the most wretched is amazingly done.

There are two things at play here I want to comment on. One, that in the end Rodrigues in some ways exists only to minister to his wretch, his Judas, Kikishiro and in many ways, requiring that he continually forgive his betrayals and the pain he increasingly feels is the closest he will ever come to being like Christ.

Two, I think there is an interesting thing going on with the idea of graven images of christian faith representing fidelity to that faith--in some respects, by forcing the christians and the priests to reject all the graven images attributed to their faith they are in some ways bringing them to a more spiritual place, but, and this is one of the points, in our human failings they are so attached to their idols of faith that their idols are their faith.

In a sense, the Silence Rodrigues has always heard is only broken when he sets aside his idols along with his pride and along with his fears for his own soul.


In some ways, the film suggested to me an interesting inversion: "What would it gain you to lose the whole world but save your own soul?"
You encapsulated many of my own thoughts about the film quite well.

In regards to the statement about the title - I see so many applications of it throughout the film:

- The silence Rodrigues feels in regards to hearing the Lord's voice through his struggles
- The silence of the soundtrack completely dropping out when Rodrigues finally accepts giving up any of his own glory/pride/outward expression of his faith for the benefit of the Japanese Christians who are being tortured - and only then hearing the voice of the Lord
- The silence Rodrigues and Ferreira must keep for the remainder of their lives in order to secure that protection
- The silence of the inner monologues of Rodrigues at the end of the film (sans one key moment of conversation between Rodrigues and the Lord), where only the (hindered) observation of the Dutch traders speak to us, even though the careful imagery of the film and the performances convey the true inner faith of the former priest.

There are probably more that I am missing. I think in particular the flip of Rodrigues' first scenario (outward expression with no contact with the Lord) to Rodrigues' second scenario (no outward expression with continual conversation with the Lord) is presented with particular skill and insight of a master filmmaker. (At least, my impression was that we are to understand that Rodrigues has been able to freely converse with the Lord throughout his remaining life of outward silence, now that he has found true inner faith despite living as an example of an apostate).

By this same token, his relationship with Kichijiro throughout the film is a wonderful journey - it goes from Rodrigues seeing himself as a vessel of redemption for Kichijiro, to being frustrated by Kichijiro's apparent lack of understanding, to pitying Kichijiro, to finally perceiving that Kichijiro was ahead of him by catching on earlier, at least in part, that the outward displays of Christianity mean nothing if it costs one's life. The final conversation they have is so difficult for Rodrigues because you can see that he's trying to help Kichijiro understand the outward displays of apostasy that Kichijiro demonstrates are fine, but that Kichijiro can still go a step further and not endanger himself with the need for confession or the physical objects. Because repentance is ultimately between the individual and the Lord without the clergy intermediary. So that final scene for Kichijiro where he is caught with the Christian symbol just confirms to Rodrigues that Kichijiro still hasn't progressed to that understanding yet, but now Rodrigues' interests on behalf of Kichijiro is wholly about Kichijiro's well being and not just a reflection of Rodrigues' own ego/sake as his priest. It's interesting that you call him Rodrigues' "Judas" - as that plays in directly with Ferreira calling Rodrigues' on seeing himself in some ways as Christ. The truth is that Kichijiro is no more Judas than Rodrigues is Christ, because while Kichijiro betrays Rodrigues, he never enacts Judas' actual apostasy of betraying Christ.

Another interesting element the film presents is the idea that true Christianity goes beyond the outward appearance that is so commonly associated with it. Rodrigues writes in his letter that he fears the Japanese Christians place too much value in the physical symbols and trinkets, yet he at this time fails to recognize that he really does the same thing, but just in far less blatant a manner. His faith is true but it's too muddled by the role of priest and the role of the church to see the more sincere need of a purer Christianity of inner faith in the particular situation.

The whole work is really a very layered exploration of a variety of teachings of Christianity, such as:

- "When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."
- "The Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart." (Ferreira tells Rodrigues that the Japanese Christians cannot comprehend Christ as they do, but of course he can't truly know another man's heart. Mokichi suggests that it's laughable that some peasants still profess to follow Christ after Rodrigues has committed public apostasy, but of course he can't know their hearts, etc.)
- "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Replace "sabbath" with any sacrament / administration of a priest or the church. When the church or its sacraments are changed from a valuable instruction or of means of leading towards a Christian life and are replaced with the intention for men's recognition and praise, or in the film's extreme case of the invitation of persecution and torture, it has lost its designed purpose).
Last edited by captveg on Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#178 Post by Drucker » Sun Jan 15, 2017 7:20 pm

hearthesilence wrote:Saw this today. First off, it was preceded by some terrible looking trailers, including three in a row that featured lousy covers of classic alternative rock songs. One trailer was Life, and the storyline of dangerous alien life playing out under soundbites from a John F. Kennedy speech lead a friend to remark on how it was tapping into the anti-immigration paranoia fueling Trump's reactionary America. I bring this up because much to my surprise, so much of the film kept me thinking about the state of the world and the terrible prospects of the near future.

I'm not sure if this is a masterpiece but it raises many questions about the world in a very profound and relentlessly self-interrogating way. Perhaps it's more of a credit to the source material, but as an agnostic I found all of this extremely compelling. It took a while - for the first thirty minutes, I wondered if this would be a film for believers only. The Catholic rituals may have been familiar, but for the first act, watching them in the story's context made Christianity seem like a cult.

That impression faded when I focused less on the particulars of the religion and more on the different point-of-views of the Japanese government and the Christians, and from there it was a flood of questions. It's hard to summarize because there was so much that seemed relevant to what was going on here.

For example, I kept thinking about the conflict of morality defined by the secular, legal world and those by one's personal religion. The real struggles within that issue have been distorted and twisted by the hostile political environment we've been in, but while the separation of church and state is a non-issue for me, I don't doubt that the personal, internal struggle it can create can be very real.

This line of thought lead to the imperialistic tendencies of religion throughout history - it's not explicitly stated in the film, but there is dialogue that made me think of Christianity's own history of oppressing other religions with equal (if not worse) brutality and its own inquisitions. The utopian model of allowing multiple philosophical views has always been the only choice for me, but over the past 15 years, I've only had doubts about whether a safe and unshaken majority of the world would truly embrace that.

Beyond that, I couldn't help but equate the Japanese government with the ruling Chinese Communist party of today, and the way they can view religious faith as a state threat. On the one hand, I'm deeply concerned about the influence reactionary religious views will have on our country, and yet I can see how a deep belief in something greater than "the State" can be seen as an eventual path to political freedom under authoritarian rule.

A lot to chew on, and because of the way this film dramatized these philosophical arguments, there wasn't a moment during the last two hours where I wasn't mulling these issues over. That was very unexpected given the reactions I've heard from others towards this film.
Hearthesilence I think you put into words my feelings about the film as well. About 30 minutes in is when I stopped really trying to focus on "narratively" what was happening with the film. Instead I focused on the questions of faith I imagine Scorsese was trying to raise. This is not a film about whether or not the Jesuits or Japanese government is "right" or more moral--there is no answer. Instead: what does a true test of faith entail? Does that test validate one's beliefs? Or call them all into questions. I am no student of religion or philosophy, but I imagine those more familiar with the subjects can find tons to unpack within this film.

I wish I could put into words the profound feelings I got while watching this film. It was a film that truly moved me and I felt rather than merely "watched." This film is absolutely a masterpiece.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#179 Post by movielocke » Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:02 pm

captveg wrote:
movielocke wrote:Complex film, Scorsese's methodical approach makes it all worth it.

I was shocked when they wanted to stay and put the lives of the villagers in danger, and from that point I was wondering how the journey of them realizing that their concern with saving their own souls (or becoming glorious martyrs with 'heroic' defiance) was a price that would be paid with the lives and torment of the people they minister.

In the revelation at the end, that the most christian thing to do is to set aside your own love of your own soul and if need be to give up salvation for the sake of the most wretched is amazingly done.

There are two things at play here I want to comment on. One, that in the end Rodrigues in some ways exists only to minister to his wretch, his Judas, Kikishiro and in many ways, requiring that he continually forgive his betrayals and the pain he increasingly feels is the closest he will ever come to being like Christ.

Two, I think there is an interesting thing going on with the idea of graven images of christian faith representing fidelity to that faith--in some respects, by forcing the christians and the priests to reject all the graven images attributed to their faith they are in some ways bringing them to a more spiritual place, but, and this is one of the points, in our human failings they are so attached to their idols of faith that their idols are their faith.

In a sense, the Silence Rodrigues has always heard is only broken when he sets aside his idols along with his pride and along with his fears for his own soul.


In some ways, the film suggested to me an interesting inversion: "What would it gain you to lose the whole world but save your own soul?"
You encapsulated many of my own thoughts about the film quite well.

In regards to the statement about the title - I see so many applications of it throughout the film:

- The silence Rodrigues feels in regards to hearing the Lord's voice through his struggles
- The silence of the soundtrack completely dropping out when Rodrigues finally accepts giving up any of his own glory/pride/outward expression of his faith for the benefit of the Japanese Christians who are being tortured - and only then hearing the voice of the Lord
- The silence Rodrigues and Ferreira must keep for the remainder of their lives in order to secure that protection
- The silence of the inner monologues of Rodrigues at the end of the film (sans one key moment of conversation between Rodrigues and the Lord), where only the (hindered) observation of the Dutch traders speak to us, even though the careful imagery of the film and the performances convey the true inner faith of the former priest.

There are probably more that I am missing. I think in particular the flip of Rodrigues' first scenario (outward expression with no contact with the Lord) to Rodrigues' second scenario (no outward expression with continual conversation with the Lord) is presented with particular skill and insight of a master filmmaker. (At least, my impression was that we are to understand that Rodrigues has been able to freely converse with the Lord throughout his remaining life of outward silence, now that he has found true inner faith despite living as an example of an apostate).

By this same token, his relationship with Kichijiro throughout the film is a wonderful journey - it goes from Rodrigues seeing himself as a vessel of redemption for Kichijiro, to being frustrated by Kichijiro's apparent lack of understanding, to pitying Kichijiro, to finally perceiving that Kichijiro was ahead of him by catching on earlier, at least in part, that the outward displays of Christianity mean nothing if it costs one's life. The final conversation they have is so difficult for Rodrigues because you can see that he's trying to help Kichijiro understand the outward displays of apostasy that Kichijiro demonstrates are fine, but that Kichijiro can still go a step further and not endanger himself with the need for confession or the physical objects. Because repentance is ultimately between the individual and the Lord without the clergy intermediary. So that final scene for Kichijiro where he is caught with the Christian symbol just confirms to Rodrigues that Kichijiro still hasn't progressed to that understanding yet, but now Rodrigues' interests on behalf of Kichijiro is wholly about Kichijiro's well being and not just a reflection of Rodrigues' own ego/sake as his priest. It's interesting that you call him Rodrigues' "Judas" - as that plays in directly with Ferreira calling Rodrigues' on seeing himself in some ways as Christ. The truth is that Kichijiro is no more Judas than Rodrigues is Christ, because while Kichijiro betrays Rodrigues, he never enacts Judas' actual apostasy of betraying Christ.

Another interesting element the film presents is the idea that true Christianity goes beyond the outward appearance that is so commonly associated with it. Rodrigues writes in his letter that he fears the Japanese Christians place too much value in the physical symbols and trinkets, yet he at this time fails to recognize that he really does the same thing, but just in far less blatant a manner. His faith is true but it's too muddled by the role of priest and the role of the church to see the more sincere need of a purer Christianity of inner faith in the particular situation.

The whole work is really a very layered exploration of a variety of teachings of Christianity, such as:

- "When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."
- "The Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart." (Ferreira tells Rodrigues that the Japanese Christians cannot comprehend Christ as they do, but of course he can't truly know another man's heart. Mokichi suggests that it's laughable that some peasants still profess to follow Christ after Rodrigues has committed public apostasy, but of course he can't know their hearts, etc.)
- "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Replace "sabbath" with any sacrament / administration of a priest or the church. When the church or its sacraments are changed from a valuable instruction or of means of leading towards a Christian life and are replaced with the intention for men's recognition and praise, or in the film's extreme case of the invitation of persecution and torture, it has lost its designed purpose).
This is a superb post across the board that is helping me to explore the films complex explorations of inner and outer faith all the better, thank you.

I refer to kichijiro as rodrigues' judas not because it's a direct metaphor but because of how I've understood Judas since I was about seventeen. That is to say, I've always thought that Judas was me, That we are all Judas, I've identified with Judas and rather than have thought of him as some betrayer or biblical bad guy I've thought he was the one that taught us who we really were.

Which brings me to the point that throughout the film I primarily identified with Kichijiro, never or rarely with the priests, because I see him in the same place I see myself. So it makes sense to me that I would term him the films Judas.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#180 Post by hearthesilence » Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Drucker wrote:Hearthesilence I think you put into words my feelings about the film as well. About 30 minutes in is when I stopped really trying to focus on "narratively" what was happening with the film. Instead I focused on the questions of faith I imagine Scorsese was trying to raise. This is not a film about whether or not the Jesuits or Japanese government is "right" or more moral--there is no answer. Instead: what does a true test of faith entail? Does that test validate one's beliefs? Or call them all into questions. I am no student of religion or philosophy, but I imagine those more familiar with the subjects can find tons to unpack within this film.

I wish I could put into words the profound feelings I got while watching this film. It was a film that truly moved me and I felt rather than merely "watched." This film is absolutely a masterpiece.
Thanks man, and I'm glad you were moved by the film. I really hope more people give it a chance, it's one of Scorsese's richest and most complex films and it's even more impressive how (at least to me) he's made this film so engaging and compelling on both an intellectual and gut level without needing one to share in his spiritual beliefs.

User avatar
chiendent
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 12:32 pm

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#181 Post by chiendent » Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:46 pm

Finally caught this on Monday and I loved it, definitely echo the praise in the last couple pages. I went to a legit matinee for the first time in years (movie started before 11am) and the theater was decently crowded, probably because it was a holiday. The crowd was well-behaved and the only real annoyance was some songs from Moana bleeding over from next door towards the beginning.

The performances were great all around but the standout to me was actually Tadanobu Asano's interpreter. It's not surprising that it isn't getting any awards love, though, since I can't imagine most people making it through a DVD screener of this.

User avatar
jsteffe
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#182 Post by jsteffe » Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:57 pm

chiendent wrote:It's not surprising that it isn't getting any awards love, though, since I can't imagine most people making it through a DVD screener of this.
Given the film's emotional and intellectual complexity and its deliberate pace, you may be right. I found it utterly compelling in the theater, but I think that normal home viewing conditions (including snack breaks) will diminish it.

User avatar
nosy lena
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:40 am

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#183 Post by nosy lena » Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:13 pm

Michael Kerpan wrote:Judging from the novel and Shinoda's film -- I think one IS supposed to start off thinking of the priests as heroes -- and then gradually see them as brave but foolish and (disastrously) dangerous. Lots of moral complexity as things proceed toward the end.
This is what I really liked about Shinoda's film and what I think Scorsese really screwed up and what made me feeling very annoyed leaving the theater. Although beautiful and very well made all I could think when watching Scorsese's film was "why did Scorsese spend 20 some years wanting to make this remake of the novel if he was going to make the film almost identical to the Shinoda's movie?" And then the ending happened and it removed the complex and and somewhat brutal ending of Shinoda's film and replaced it with... I don't even know what. I do think Scorsese's film ends up white washing the foolish and disastrously dangerous actions and instead focuses on the sentiment that Rodrigues remained a Christian through out all of his hardships. Maybe that's not the message that Scorsese meant to give but that's the message I received.

I saw this at MoMA's Contender series a little over a month ago. NY premier perhaps? Sold out, most people stayed, lukewarm reception.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#184 Post by Drucker » Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:22 pm

nosy lena wrote:
Michael Kerpan wrote:Judging from the novel and Shinoda's film -- I think one IS supposed to start off thinking of the priests as heroes -- and then gradually see them as brave but foolish and (disastrously) dangerous. Lots of moral complexity as things proceed toward the end.
This is what I really liked about Shinoda's film and what I think Scorsese really screwed up and what made me feeling very annoyed leaving the theater. Although beautiful and very well made all I could think when watching Scorsese's film was "why did Scorsese spend 20 some years wanting to make this remake of the novel if he was going to make the film almost identical to the Shinoda's movie?" And then the ending happened and it removed the complex and and somewhat brutal ending of Shinoda's film and replaced it with... I don't even know what. I do think Scorsese's film ends up white washing the foolish and disastrously dangerous actions and instead focuses on the sentiment that Rodrigues remained a Christian through out all of his hardships. Maybe that's not the message that Scorsese meant to give but that's the message I received.

I saw this at MoMA's Contender series a little over a month ago. NY premier perhaps? Sold out, most people stayed, lukewarm reception.
I'll just say that all I could think of during this film was "Is holding on to their faith worth it? Is it worth it for these poor villagers to hold on to this faith?"
SpoilerShow
The ending makes clear Rodrigues ultimately holds on to his faith and found it was important for him to make it throughout the years, but I don't believe the film absolves him of the fact that he and his comrades brought a religion to people that caused their death. I thought the film did a good job of leaving it up for the viewer to decide.
Though I have never read the book or seen Shinoda's film.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#185 Post by matrixschmatrix » Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:42 pm

I also haven't seen the Shinoda or read the book, but to me, the key to the ending is this:
SpoilerShow
The crucifix Garfield's character still has is the Japanese-made one. There is a lot of argument between Neeson and Garfield about whether the Japanese were ever truly Christian, and I think this symbol is vital to the movie's outlook on that- they weren't, in Neeson's sense, because their belief could never fit into the ordered (and ultimately imperialist) Catholicism that sent them on the mission; theirs is a specifically Japanese Christianity, one that exists in an atmosphere of fear and oppression, one that is secret and internal and unbelievably powerful. Garfield doesn't keep his own faith; he is an apostate, and by the rules of the Catholic Church, he is going to hell. He spends his days rejecting Euro Christian symbols. He is a convert- to the religion of the people he truly loved and wanted to protect.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#186 Post by Michael Kerpan » Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:20 pm

Matrix -- lovely reading of the end!

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#187 Post by FrauBlucher » Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:44 am

dda1996a wrote:Really? Thats rather surprising as I always viewed the DGA (and the director's branch of most associations) to be the most open to difficult and challenging cinema. Guess I was wrong then.
How close is this to Last Temptation?
The New York chapter of DGA is much different than the west coast membership. Many in NY are old timers who work for network/local news and sports. Their film viewing tendancies are very mainstream. Whenever I've gone to see a foreign film or an art house film that screens at the DGA it is mostly an empty theater. I heard one member, while taking a piss call A Tree of Life a "piece of shit" after that screening. And there were lots of grumbling after Anderson's The Master. These are the folks that get to vote. :roll:

As for Silence, for the most part, it is a very secular group. So, Silence is a tough sell for this audience. One guy chuckled when Rodrigues was talking to god. I didn't expect any great reaction from the crowd.

The underlying theme of challenging and questioning faith is what The Last Temptation and Silence have in common but the means to get to those themes are very different.

I love these comments in this thread. I am glad that there is a more positive take on this, with a religous context to the discussions. On my initial viewing I was somewhat disappointed. That was my own doing as my expectations were sky high. (Plus, I didn't love Garfield. I would have rather seen Driver in the main role.) So, I needed it to sink in and read other takes on this for my appreciation to grow, which it is. I will see it again in the near future and am looking forward to delving back in.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#188 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:00 am

Have to second the enthusiasm for what matrix wrote - one of the better breakdowns of a film's ending I've read on this website, to be honest.

User avatar
dda1996a
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#189 Post by dda1996a » Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:18 am

FrauBlucher wrote:
dda1996a wrote:Really? Thats rather surprising as I always viewed the DGA (and the director's branch of most associations) to be the most open to difficult and challenging cinema. Guess I was wrong then.
How close is this to Last Temptation?
The New York chapter of DGA is much different than the west coast membership. Many in NY are old timers who work for network/local news and sports. Their film viewing tendancies are very mainstream. Whenever I've gone to see a foreign film or an art house film that screens at the DGA it is mostly an empty theater. I heard one member, while taking a piss call A Tree of Life a "piece of shit" after that screening. And there were lots of grumbling after Anderson's The Master. These are the folks that get to vote. :roll:

As for Silence, for the most part, it is a very secular group. So, Silence is a tough sell for this audience. One guy chuckled when Rodrigues was talking to god. I didn't expect any great reaction from the crowd.

The underlying theme of challenging and questioning faith is what The Last Temptation and Silence have in common but the means to get to those themes are very different.

I love these comments in this thread. I am glad that there is a more positive take on this, with a religous context to the discussions. On my initial viewing I was somewhat disappointed. That was my own doing as my expectations were sky high. (Plus, I didn't love Garfield. I would have rather seen Driver in the main role.) So, I needed it to sink in and read other takes on this for my appreciation to grow, which it is. I will see it again in the near future and am looking forward to delving back in.
I meant similar as in the way Scorsese directs the film and its pace. I adore Last Temptation, but found Kundun more sober and less enlightening (both are due a rewatch). It's a shame the film opens here this week as I'm unable to even read any of these posts.
A shame about the DGA. How are people in sports in the DGA? And I don't think anyone really expected this to make any money, or even get a Best Picture nom.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#190 Post by movielocke » Thu Jan 19, 2017 1:55 pm

The dga membership Is massive, a lot of the people in the credits of film and tv are in the dga, unit production managers (for example) and all rest of the assistants and what not. A friend of mine is in the dga and he primarily produces or rents equipment and sells insurance to shorts, web series, and commercials. Rather than "directing"

Unlike ACE or the academy the dga is not a country club of exclusivity, it's very inclusive

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#191 Post by hearthesilence » Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:12 pm

What's the practical advantage for them being in the DGA? Healthcare?

beamish13
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:31 am

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#192 Post by beamish13 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:36 pm

The DGA also invites critics and many academics. A former TA my girlfriend had at UCLA who's now a professor at Texas A&M is a member.

The biggest advantages are screeners and bragging rights.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#193 Post by movielocke » Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:14 pm

hearthesilence wrote:What's the practical advantage for them being in the DGA? Healthcare?
collective bargaining

User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#194 Post by captveg » Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:38 pm

movielocke wrote:
hearthesilence wrote:What's the practical advantage for them being in the DGA? Healthcare?
collective bargaining
Everyone should be part of a Guild


User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#196 Post by Michael Kerpan » Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:28 pm

Thanks for the link.

Sadly, Silence seems to have only lasted at its main Boston theater for one week....

User avatar
Shrew
The Untamed One
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:22 am

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#197 Post by Shrew » Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:32 pm

Michael Kerpan wrote:
Thanks for the link.

Sadly, Silence seems to have only lasted at its main Boston theater for one week....
It's still playing at the Somerville this week, though only at 4:15.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#198 Post by Michael Kerpan » Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:38 pm

My wife and I made a point of seeing this in it first week -- as I feared it would disappear rapidly. Too bad, it deserves a bigger audience.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#199 Post by Drucker » Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:30 pm

Garfield's desperation was excellent throughout the film. The viewer always seems to know as much as him, never more. We question and are lost when he is lost. We live through moments with him. I really thought highly of his performance, and while Adam Driver is a better actor overall, his demeanor and character were better suited for the role he played.

It sounds like you were watching this on your computer? You're missing out.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Silence (Martin Scorsese, 2016)

#200 Post by matrixschmatrix » Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:26 pm

I thought Garfield was excellent- there's a tentative quality to his performance, something that suggests that he's not fully able to hold in his feelings, but that he is also intensely sensitive to what others are feeling, more so than Driver's character. His look was slightly distracting- he's very pretty and seems to have beautifully shampooed and conditioned hair- in a way almost nobody else in the movie is (though Neeson looks disconcertingly like his Star Wars character.) But ultimately, if you're going to be taken out of Hollywood filmmaking because the actors are too good looking, you're going to miss a lot.

Post Reply