@Jacinto Cupboard said:

The core question of this movie is whether some beliefs are worth suffering or even dying for. The answer in this tale is 'no'.

As I alluded to in my previous post, it's been years since I watched the film. I seem to recall it having a protagonist who struggles to keep his Catholic faith while being tortured and tormented--and God never answers his calls for help. That's a hell of an existential pickle to be in.

Hi CF. As I interpret the movie, each of the three protagonists goes a different way: Garupe (Driver) makes no concessions to his faith and is martyred. Ferreira (Neeson) abandons his faith entirely and becomes a Buddhist. Rodrigues (Garfield) publicly renounces his faith but holds to it in secret; a silence meant I think to mirror the supposed silence of God. It is this final depiction that is problematic theologically, dramatically and historically.

Why the Rodrigues story becomes the central narrative doesn't make sense to me, not the least because by definition we cannot say any such thing ever happened. The theme is also, paradoxically, philosophically more in alignment with Buddhism than Christianity- the idea that one can overcome by yielding and that the divine is indifferent. or silent, to suffering. I have yet to meet any Christian, let alone a Catholic priest, who holds to the idea that faith can exist in silence in this sort of way. It is, frankly, antithetical to the faith.

By all means tell the story. If nothing else it opens up conversations about 'existential pickles' and what it means to be faithful, and to ask ourselves what we might have done. But the Garupe and Ferreira stories are more interesting and revealing, and, importantly, historically consistent. The Rodrigues story has all sorts of problems, not the least being why, after perhaps 20 years, he still hides his faith. Who, exactly, is he protecting at that point except himself?

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

Hi CF. As I interpret the movie, each of the three protagonists goes a different way: Garupe (Driver) makes no concessions to his faith and is martyred. Ferreira (Neeson) abandons his faith entirely and becomes a Buddhist. Rodrigues (Garfield) publicly renounces his faith but holds to it in secret; a silence meant I think to mirror the supposed silence of God. It is this final depiction that is problematic theologically, dramatically and historically.

Why the Rodrigues story becomes the central narrative doesn't make sense to me, not the least because by definition we cannot say any such thing ever happened. The theme is also, paradoxically, philosophically more in alignment with Buddhism than Christianity- the idea that one can overcome by yielding and that the divine is indifferent. or silent, to suffering. I have yet to meet any Christian, let alone a Catholic priest, who holds to the idea that faith can exist in silence in this sort of way. It is, frankly, antithetical to the faith.

Yeah, your synopsis is bringing back details about Silence for me.

I got what you meant by mentioning "the supposed silence of God," but would you elaborate on that idea some? I was raised in the Christian faith and have personally had at least a moment where I felt myself grapple with feelings of aloneness regarding a difficult situation: alone in my plight, alone without the guidance of God. (I'm fine now, however.)

By all means tell the story. If nothing else it opens up conversations about 'existential pickles' and what it means to be faithful, and to ask ourselves what we might have done. But the Garupe and Ferreira stories are more interesting and revealing, and, importantly, historically consistent. The Rodrigues story has all sorts of problems, not the least being why, after perhaps 20 years, he still hides his faith. Who, exactly, is he protecting at that point except himself.

Ah yes, I guess you're referring to a final or close-to-final shot of Rodrigues' body burning that features a "sneak peek" at the inside of his clothing where you see a crucifix. Correct me if I am wrong. I wondered similarly to what you did when I saw that shot--or at least, I think I did.

CF. I think Christians realise for the most part that God is indeed silent. Altho the Old Testament has numerous instances of God talking to people like Moses and Jesus appears to Paul in the NT, in the Christian scheme of things this aspect of God is taken up by the Holy Spirit and is, well, mysterious. There is no expectation (outside of the evangelical movement) that the Holy Spirit would take human form or speak to a person in actual words. So the problem of silence is moot. (Excuse the pun.) Faith only requires that God hears. A 17th century Jesuit priest would have seen any amount of suffering wherever he came from, so the idea that this problem of God's silence in the face of suffering is brought to the surface by a mission to Japan seems to me redundant. It's not a unique or even special circumstance likely to reveal questions that would not have arisen otherwise.

Even so, the story undermines its own premise by actually having Jesus in voiceover giving Rodrigues 'permission' to apostatize. So in the story God isn't silent at all. There are all sorts of theological problems with that, but we don't have to go beyond the recognition that it is a dramatic problem. If the premise is that God is silent in the face of suffering, why are we actually and literally hearing the voice of God?

I think it is clear that we are meant to understand that Rodrigues never lost faith but only publicly refuted it. But the Inquisitor has already told us that he doesn't care about the few remaining Christians left since 'their roots are cut' and that they would never grow in the 'swamp' of Japan. So there is no reason for Rodrigues to continue to deny his faith, because by this point he is only protecting himself.