Author Topic: The Mission (1986) movie (Read 1705 times)

Pelele · « **on:** December 17, 2013, 03:04:17 PM »

Did the slaughter and the destruction of the missions and the actions of the Cardinal really take place as they did in the movie? That was abominable!

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #1 on:** December 17, 2013, 03:39:41 PM »

Stupid movie

Pelele · « **Reply #2 on:** December 17, 2013, 03:47:24 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Stupid movie

Why? It's not accurate?

Renzo · « **Reply #3 on:** December 17, 2013, 04:03:03 PM »

That stuff reminds me of songs like, Midnight oil's "beds are burning" or the cranberries, "zombie." Just media designed to drum up a lot of irrational guilt, while rational guilt is crushed under the weight of constant rationalization and/or rap like nonsense.

Sigismund · « **Reply #4 on:** December 17, 2013, 06:56:09 PM »

If the movie was accurate, then what is irrational? Is everything a European conqueror has ever done above question?

Pelele · « **Reply #5 on:** December 17, 2013, 07:04:13 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

If the movie was accurate, then what is irrational? Is everything a European conqueror has ever done above question?

The Cardinal was the one who allowed those atrocities to happen, in the movie.

Sigismund · « **Reply #6 on:** December 17, 2013, 08:21:02 PM »

He did, but as I recall it was the Spanish government officials there who actually did it. That doesn't mean the cardinal was guiltless, by any means.

I saw the movie a long time ago. I liked it well enough at the time. I don't know what I would think of it now. Also, I don't really know how accurate the movie was historically. Maybe very accurate, maybe not at all.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #7 on:** December 17, 2013, 09:04:57 PM »

Quote from: Pelele

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Stupid movie

Why? It's not accurate?

I don't know if it was accurate, but it was only nominally Catholic. What on earth was De Niro's character?

Renzo · « **Reply #8 on:** December 17, 2013, 09:24:25 PM »

I liked Mel Gibson's "apocalypto."

Pelele · « **Reply #9 on:** December 17, 2013, 09:34:10 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Pelele
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Stupid movie

Why? It's not accurate?

I don't know if it was accurate, but it was only nominally Catholic. What on earth was De Niro's character?

He was a mercenary and slave trader who killed his brother and then became a Jesuit Priest.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #10 on:** December 17, 2013, 09:45:23 PM »

Quote from: Pelele

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Pelele
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Stupid movie

Why? It's not accurate?

I don't know if it was accurate, but it was only nominally Catholic. What on earth was De Niro's character?

He was a mercenary and slave trader who killed his brother and then became a Jesuit Priest.

The movie never shows him being ordained. IIRC, he undergoes some sort of "monk ceremony" and is then right afterwards referred to as "Father." His glorified disobedience of his superior was unfortunate. I found it impossible to root for him as he went into battle, since priests aren't to shed blood. Jeremy Iron's character had more of it right.

Honestly, it's been a while so I'll leave my criticism at that. I'm sure if I saw it again I'd have more to say.

I do recall that the native women were topless for the entire movie, except when the bishop came to visit the mission and they put shirts on them.

Pelele · « **Reply #11 on:** December 17, 2013, 10:24:41 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

The movie never shows him being ordained. IIRC, he undergoes some sort of "monk ceremony" and is then right afterwards referred to as "Father."

Yes, there was no ceremony, first he was called a monk and then all of a sudden a Priest.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

His glorified disobedience of his superior was unfortunate. I found it impossible to root for him as he went into battle, since priests aren't to shed blood. Jeremy Iron's character had more of it right.

Couldn't what he did be considered a sort of just war? They were going to invade and kill them all, and he was just going to sit there and watch when he could have done something?

I thought the whole thing was stupid and what they should have done instead was go to the cliff and never let them climb in the first place. Climbing the cliff was the only way to get there and yet theyr waited for them to climb and go all the way to the village with the canons and everything. Ridiculous!

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Honestly, it's been a while so I'll leave my criticism at that. I'm sure if I saw it again I'd have more to say.

I do recall that the native women were topless for the entire movie, except when the bishop came to visit the mission and they put shirts on them.

Yes there was a lot of nudity.

claudel · « **Reply #12 on:** December 18, 2013, 03:04:57 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Stupid movie

Well, perhaps—but perhaps you are being a bit hasty. A big plus is that the film disclosed the existence of the Jesuit reductions in South America to the overwhelming majority of those who saw it. Furthermore, the positive presentation of the reductions was, by conventional filmmaking standards, a stupefying surprise. Nice scenery, too, as I recall.

Q. Is the film one of the few in existence to significantly edify and enrich the viewer?
A. No; of course not.
Q. Is watching it a better way to spend two hours than staring blankly at a wall?
A. Maybe.

For some, the first answer will suffice to tell them that seeing the film is a waste of time. The second answer alone, however, elevates The Mission above 90 percent of the films I myself have seen in my entire life.

magdalena · « **Reply #13 on:** December 23, 2013, 07:45:46 PM »

Quote from: claudel

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Stupid movie

Well, perhaps—but perhaps you are being a bit hasty. A big plus is that the film disclosed the existence of the Jesuit reductions in South America to the overwhelming majority of those who saw it. Furthermore, the positive presentation of the reductions was, by conventional filmmaking standards, a stupefying surprise. Nice scenery, too, as I recall.

Q. Is the film one of the few in existence to significantly edify and enrich the viewer?
A. No; of course not.
Q. Is watching it a better way to spend two hours than staring blankly at a wall?
A. Maybe.

For some, the first answer will suffice to tell them that seeing the film is a waste of time. The second answer alone, however, elevates The Mission above 90 percent of the films I myself have seen in my entire life.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/PvWaD-NErlY[/youtube]

bowler · « **Reply #14 on:** December 24, 2013, 08:42:00 AM »

Prior to the 1960's they made some movies like this but without inserting the poison. Today, it is a rare movie that is not poisoned. In the case of this movie it is impurity. The De Niro character has an affair with his brothers wife, the native girls walk around topless, and more.

Pius IX or X said that a perfectly good bottle of wine 99% pure but with 1% poison will kill you just the same. These movies since the 1960's all contain the poison. Excellent movies are ruined by maybe as little as one scene.

If you would not allow your children to see the movie, then it is no good for you too.