Martin Scorsese brings us a film which is, in many ways, compelling, beautiful, and spiritually powerful, but ultimately squanders all that by providing a counterfeit Christ
At first glance it is not clear how the voice is to be interpreted. However, the subtitles help. As Rodriquez steps on the image, a cock crows (it’s hard to hear but this was written in the subtitles), clearly painting the action as a betrayal. Thus the filmmakers must have believed the voice to be that of Satan.
We read the book this is based on in Dr. Lane’s History of Catholicism in Asia. If I remember correctly he didn’t hear a voice right before he apostatized but rather at the end of the book when he’s living in relative peace and struggling with his choices, so that was a deliberate choice on the part of the filmmakers to put it there.
Thanks Cecilia! I have not read the book, but if that is the case, then I think the book must be much more in tune with Catholic tradition about suffering, repentance, and redemption. Thanks for sharing this insight!
Great review. When I saw the film, I interpreted the “voice of Christ” to be the devil, and Rodriguez’ acceptance of it to be his own breaking point. Then, when we see him dying with a secret cross, it was meant to show that while he broke, inwardly he maintained a small devotion to Christ. I don’t think the film has to be taken as endorsing apostasy in the face of hardship.
Thanks Tobu! I do agree that the film doesn't necessarily have to be taken as endorsing apostasy. If you interpret that voice of "Christ" as the voice of Satan, then the film takes on elements of classic tragedy and we can mourn the downfall of Fr. Rodrigues. It becomes a pretty compelling meditation on pride and the weakness of man, and like I said it is astonishingly well-made and worth watching cinematically.
However, I do think that the filmmakers (and the original author) intend us to take the voice of "Christ" as THE voice of Christ, and since I have a hard time separating authorial intent from the meaning of a work, it ended up falling flat for me. The film can be taken in an orthodox way, but I don't think it was meant in an orthodox way, and as such I wouldn't recommend it unless someone was already very firm in their faith.
At first glance it is not clear how the voice is to be interpreted. However, the subtitles help. As Rodriquez steps on the image, a cock crows (it’s hard to hear but this was written in the subtitles), clearly painting the action as a betrayal. Thus the filmmakers must have believed the voice to be that of Satan.
PS
I agree that the ending is not a Catholic one.
Saw this movie years ago, and I still don't know what to think of it.
We read the book this is based on in Dr. Lane’s History of Catholicism in Asia. If I remember correctly he didn’t hear a voice right before he apostatized but rather at the end of the book when he’s living in relative peace and struggling with his choices, so that was a deliberate choice on the part of the filmmakers to put it there.
Great review as always, thank you for sharing!
Thanks Cecilia! I have not read the book, but if that is the case, then I think the book must be much more in tune with Catholic tradition about suffering, repentance, and redemption. Thanks for sharing this insight!
Great review. When I saw the film, I interpreted the “voice of Christ” to be the devil, and Rodriguez’ acceptance of it to be his own breaking point. Then, when we see him dying with a secret cross, it was meant to show that while he broke, inwardly he maintained a small devotion to Christ. I don’t think the film has to be taken as endorsing apostasy in the face of hardship.
Thanks Tobu! I do agree that the film doesn't necessarily have to be taken as endorsing apostasy. If you interpret that voice of "Christ" as the voice of Satan, then the film takes on elements of classic tragedy and we can mourn the downfall of Fr. Rodrigues. It becomes a pretty compelling meditation on pride and the weakness of man, and like I said it is astonishingly well-made and worth watching cinematically.
However, I do think that the filmmakers (and the original author) intend us to take the voice of "Christ" as THE voice of Christ, and since I have a hard time separating authorial intent from the meaning of a work, it ended up falling flat for me. The film can be taken in an orthodox way, but I don't think it was meant in an orthodox way, and as such I wouldn't recommend it unless someone was already very firm in their faith.