CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › SILENCE (2016) Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SILENCE (2016) Discussion

post #1 of 104
Thread Starter 
COMPELLING

with a fantastic villain performance!
post #2 of 104
I'm probably seeing this Thursday Night. Can't wait!
post #3 of 104
It's pretty good.
post #4 of 104

I have no idea when this is coming to my town, and that pisses me off.

post #5 of 104
Thread Starter 

Scorcese is so controlled here.  2 hours and 40 minutes of characters doing their damnedest to stay quiet and sane... and I'm completely enthralled.  Amazing pacing.  Even when the film has a bit where it's winding down for an extended epilogue, I was with it all the way.

 

And I can't get over Issey Ogata's performance.  Like Palpatine the Hutt by way of Capote!

post #6 of 104

So this is doing quite well critically, reviews mostly ranging from "difficult but good" to "masterpiece," but I couldn't help myself and went ahead and read Mick LaSalle's 1 out of 4 star review. And, man, I know I shouldn't let it, but it made me mad.

 

He calls it a bad movie, but that judgment basically stems from him fundamentally misunderstanding the source material and content + the fact that it's long (God forbid anyone try to a make a movie over 2 1/2 hrs). You know, if you don't like a movie, fine, but when it's a passion project from one of our greatest living filmmakers based on a classic novel, I would like to think that renowned critics writing for well-read publications would do due diligence in trying to engage with the film for what it is, and not just kind of lazily throw glib attacks at something they weren't feelin'.

 

God bless the critics who pour their hearts into their writing, regardless of whether the review is positive or negative. Because when it comes to a film like Silence that is made for art and not profit and its subject matter challenges, you know that's what the creatives did, they poured their hearts and souls into making that thing. They deserve at least a modicum of earnestness from those evaluating their work.

post #7 of 104
Thread Starter 
Interesting that LaSalle really didn't like Garfield here but LOVED his performance in Hacksaw.

I thought both were strong performances.
post #8 of 104
He's a good actor. He should do a superhero movie.
post #9 of 104
Thread Starter 
He's already done the best one.

He's reached such heights!
post #10 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

He's a good actor. He should do a superhero movie.

 

He was the ONLY good thing about the otherwise awful LIONS FOR LAMBS.

post #11 of 104
Thread Starter 

Jen Yamato was not a fan of the film and goes over specific issues that we are talking about in general about the way cultures are represented.

 

I found the film compelling as part criticism of the white savior narrative, but think Yamato's views on the film not doing enough on that front to be compelling as well.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/18/silence-scorsese-s-flawed-frustrating-white-savior-tries-to-save-japan-from-itself.html

 

I'm going to have to seek out the 1971 adaptation of SILENCE as well.

post #12 of 104

I read that, too.

 

The issues she has with the narrative are essentially issues that she would have with the book. I question if she actually read the book if she thinks it does not focus on the spiritual crisis of Rodrigues (somewhat marginalizing the Japanese characters as byproduct of that focus). It very much does.

 

Yamato puts a ton of emphasis on representation in her criticism. That's her prerogative, but I find it somewhat disingenuous to take the film to task for something that she seems to avoid trying to take the book to task for. Maybe in part because Silence is widely regarded as a classic novel, but probably mostly because Endo was Japanese and Scorsese, as film author, is not.

 

However, the very nature of the narrative makes that a propos and fascinating. It is this cultural clash between East and West, and here we have that rendered in film now by someone who is a product of and icon within contemporary Western culture. I think that works. And I'm really excited because along with his own style it sounds like Scorsese has created a stylistic melting pot for the film, between Western/European film like Bresson and Bergman, and then the great Japanese filmmakers like Kurosawa and Ozu. There is an absolutely fantastic interview over on Film Comment about that.

post #13 of 104

http://www.filmcomment.com/article/martin-scorsese-silence-interview/

 

soooo good

 

can't freaking wait for this movie

post #14 of 104
Thread Starter 

Thanks for that interview!  

 

Quote:
 

In that first scene in Macao where the priests are receiving their briefing from the Ciarán Hinds character, the cutting of the dialogue puts you very off-balance.

Yeah, with [production designer] Dante Ferretti, we did the chapel that way, we put them all the way at the end. And then I said, “What does this afford us?” Let’s tilt, in a sense, the idea of shot/counter shot. Often Ciarán Hinds would be speaking to Adam and then he’d be speaking to Andrew, and I wanted to see the eyes looking directly, so we’d cut from Ciarán here to Ciarán there. [Editor] Thelma Schoonmaker said at one point, “This is a strange cut.” I said, “Let’s try it. It’s kind of interesting, it kind of works.”

 

Totally felt the oddness of those cuts!  

 

 

 

I'm seeing some reviews that feel the movie is too laborious... and I get why some would feel that.  But I just did not have that response at all.

 

I WOULD agree a bit that Andrew Garfield's story (obviously the main one) never really connects that hard with me, despite all the torment he portrays over his faith-based conundrum.  But I really didn't mind that for some reason because I was always engrossed.

 

And perhaps that's why some feel the film to be laborious.  It ends up feeling like homework because they don't connect emotionally to Garfield's character.  Maybe this is homework that just clicked with me.


Edited by mcnooj82 - 1/5/17 at 10:39pm
post #15 of 104

I have to say, and take that as a first take, that I am one of those people the movie failed to connect with on an emotional level. Maybe because the issue of faith is strictly intellectual for me.

 

Still, a difficult but worthy experience.

post #16 of 104

I liked the movie but it would have benefited by cutting some chunks of it out. How about that completely unnecessary Voice Over at the end from a character that I think makes it into the movie for a couple of shots??

post #17 of 104
The length certainly makes you identify with the protagonist's struggle.
post #18 of 104

But then why not have the film continue on for 4 hours?  

 

The film could stand to lose some scenes. It's almost a 3 hour drama. 

post #19 of 104
Thread Starter 

no

 

cut nothing out!

post #20 of 104

I WILL CUT OUT ITS HEART!

post #21 of 104

The length is not the movie's problem. In fact as an experience it would suffer by being shorter. I just couldn't have cared less about the main character's conflict. It could have been 90 minutes and that wouldn't have made it work.

post #22 of 104
I totally understand that disconnect, Stelios. This is a story for those for whom faith is not just an abstract, intellectual concept but an emotional one.

That is what was always gonna keep it from awards attention.
Edited by Agentsands77 - 1/8/17 at 4:36am
post #23 of 104
Thread Starter 
Yeah I'm having a similar conversation about that very thing on Facebook.
post #24 of 104
The whole film is basically chronicling Rodriguez's moral journey, and as long as you're willing to meet it on its own terms and see the world from his point of view it's quite involving I think.

There's obviously a lot of complex theological stuff going on that's fairly inaccessible to me, given that all its dilemmas are based on premises I don't subscribe to at all. From my point of view just about everything that happens in this film is a depressing waste of time.

But the value in something like this, beyond what it is for religious people who can more directly relate to it, is in how well it expresses some very personal (to Scorsese via Endo) ways of thinking and looking at the world. It made me think about certain things in ways I've never really had reason to, which on its own makes it more than worthwhile in my book.

It's also very atmospheric and lush - and I'm not just talking about Garfield's prison hair.

It's a bit of a dour "time to eat your greens" experience, but it's a good film. Won't make a penny, but I'm glad he got to make it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

I liked the movie but it would have benefited by cutting some chunks of it out. How about that completely unnecessary Voice Over at the end from a character that I think makes it into the movie for a couple of shots??

With Neeson and then Garfield narrating most of the film, I took the third narrator as a way of underlining that the whole matter was over and done with as far as anyone else was concerned. No more priests made it their mission to go after them, the story only gets picked up by some rando who happened to be passing through.

Re: Yamato's criticisms, they seem to be in the "The problem with this film about X and Y is that it isn't a film about Q and R" school of criticism.
post #25 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post

The whole film is basically chronicling Rodriguez's moral journey, and as long as you're willing to meet it on its own terms and see the world from his point of view it's quite involving I think.

There's obviously a lot of complex theological stuff going on that's fairly inaccessible to me, given that all its dilemmas are based on premises I don't subscribe to at all. From my point of view just about everything that happens in this film is a depressing waste of time.

But the value in something like this, beyond what it is for religious people who can more directly relate to it, is in how well it expresses some very personal (to Scorsese via Endo) ways of thinking and looking at the world. It made me think about certain things in ways I've never really had reason to, which on its own makes it more than worthwhile in my book.

It's also very atmospheric and lush - and I'm not just talking about Garfield's prison hair.

It's a bit of a dour "time to eat your greens" experience, but it's a good film. Won't make a penny, but I'm glad he got to make it.
With Neeson and then Garfield narrating most of the film, I took the third narrator as a way of underlining that the whole matter was over and done with as far as anyone else was concerned. No more priests made it their mission to go after them, the story only gets picked up by some rando who happened to be passing through.

Re: Yamato's criticisms, they seem to be in the "The problem with this film about X and Y is that it isn't a film about Q and R" school of criticism.

I find the last part of the story could still have left the Voice Over out of the film. In fact, for me, it calls attention to the fact that the story isn't over. Would have been better to have stayed with Garfield throughout, give us that silence and then nail us with that final image.

My critiques are completely cosmetic. I find the movie's themes and full potential are already present and part of the film. It's a great subject to explore and made me question the ideals of faith and mission work. I just want to see the film in a more pure, tighter form where it's not dragging its knuckles or succumbing to obfuscation
post #26 of 104
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post



Re: Yamato's criticisms, they seem to be in the "The problem with this film about X and Y is that it isn't a film about Q and R" school of criticism.

 

I certainly agree with that.

 

But I think there's a lot of value in that in terms of considering cinema and cinema of a particular kind from various contexts, times, and perspectives.

post #27 of 104
This is the best fucking movie in ages. AGES.

And 26 posts.

Where are all the folks constantly railing against Marvel and DisneyWars? Against impersonal corporate filmmaking? Always whining about lack of personal vision and safe, pandering commercialization?

In the Marvel and Star Wars threads, that's where, showing all the plebs how smart they are for not falling for any of it with HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of posts dedicated to something they hate while the genuine article is RIGHT HERE.

With 26 posts..
post #28 of 104
Like most of America, I haven't even had an opportunity to see this yet, Fraid!

I'm seeing it on Saturday!

You can rant about the lack of conversation a few weeks from now!
post #29 of 104
...and I WILL rant about it when this thread fails to hit 100 posts.

But shneriously...simma down! I didn't name names!
post #30 of 104
I read between the lines!
post #31 of 104
You posted in here before I did! And what I read between the lines from your post is that you hadn't seen it yet!

You're certainly off the hook!
post #32 of 104
Good!
post #33 of 104
Thread Starter 
simmer down, fraid...

the movie wasn't readily available in theaters until recently
post #34 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

This is the best fucking movie in ages. AGES.

And 26 posts.

Where are all the folks constantly railing against Marvel and DisneyWars? Against impersonal corporate filmmaking? Always whining about lack of personal vision and safe, pandering commercialization?

In the Marvel and Star Wars threads, that's where, showing all the plebs how smart they are for not falling for any of it with HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of posts dedicated to something they hate while the genuine article is RIGHT HERE.

With 26 posts..

I'M RIGHT HERE!
post #35 of 104
Thread Starter 
I have suspicions that fraid saw this movie specifically to make that rant eheheheh
post #36 of 104
Fraid isn't allowed to rant until he also sees THE HANDMAIDEN.
post #37 of 104
Naw I'm a Scorsese NUT as everyone SHOULD be and it was just the first time that I saw one of these low post discussion threads that it irked me somewhat..
post #38 of 104
Thread Starter 
this is one of those films where most people really wouldn't post on it until they saw it

and the movie is only now getting wider release
post #39 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

This is the best fucking movie in ages. AGES.

And 26 posts.

Where are all the folks constantly railing against Marvel and DisneyWars? Against impersonal corporate filmmaking? Always whining about lack of personal vision and safe, pandering commercialization?

In the Marvel and Star Wars threads, that's where, showing all the plebs how smart they are for not falling for any of it with HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of posts dedicated to something they hate while the genuine article is RIGHT HERE.

With 26 posts..

 

Maybe we've all seen it but decided to all keep really quiet about it.

 

Re-edited to put the damn thing back the way it was. Despecialized.

post #40 of 104
Thread Starter 

first rule of silence...

 

do not tell fraid you saw silence!

post #41 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

first rule of silence...

 

do not tell fraid you saw silence!


Dammit, I was hoping to tweak the gag before anyone saw it. I've been Barry'd.

post #42 of 104

Boy, what a luxury it would be for this movie to be playing in a continental state near me.

post #43 of 104

This was off my radar completely until yesterday. Looking forward to seeing it this weekend.  Its kinda nice to be surprised mid-January with a new Scorsese movie that I was completely oblivious to.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

And I can't get over Issey Ogata's performance.  Like Palpatine the Hutt by way of Capote!

 

Its been done.

post #44 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

This is the best fucking movie in ages. AGES.

And 26 posts.

Where are all the folks constantly railing against Marvel and DisneyWars? Against impersonal corporate filmmaking? Always whining about lack of personal vision and safe, pandering commercialization?

In the Marvel and Star Wars threads, that's where, showing all the plebs how smart they are for not falling for any of it with HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of posts dedicated to something they hate while the genuine article is RIGHT HERE.

With 26 posts..

It's not playing anywhere near me, which is frustrating because I am smart and not falling for any of it!!!!

post #45 of 104
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HypnoToad View Post


Its been done.


HA! Yes!!!
post #46 of 104
I just got super duper excited for having gotten to see it so early. Houston has it's perks. I NEEEEVER see stuff like this before most of the rest of you (hell...I haven't even seen Rogue One yet) and I'm eager to read everyone's thoughts but I don't wanna say much about the specifics of it yet and get all spoilery. I feel it's gonna be pretty divisive..
post #47 of 104
I had a look on a Christian forum earlier and some of them were debating the movie enthusiastically! Like going into real in depth analysis of its attitude to faith and comparing it to their own.

That's kind of the problem with this movie as a conversation starter - unless you're from that world and ready to dive into the theology of it all, you're stuck looking at it from the outside.
post #48 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

Naw I'm a Scorsese NUT as everyone SHOULD be and it was just the first time that I saw one of these low post discussion threads that it irked me somewhat..

 

See the Swiss Army Man thread.

post #49 of 104
I think that's my issue with the film: being stuck on the outside. I'd have given up way, way before Rodrigues because, holy shit, it's just Catholicism. It's not real, definitely not worth people dying over.
post #50 of 104
Like I said, if you don't believe any of this stuff basically everything people do in this film is a complete waste of time and energy!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › SILENCE (2016) Discussion