The Mission : Is this an atheist film?

Is this an atheist film?

The ending of this film with the bible quotation seemed to encourage faith in God despite not understanding his methods. However, speaking as an atheist, this film demonstrated all the things that I find hypocritical and stupid about organised religion. I just wondered how other people saw it.

Let's try not to turn this into a theological slanging match.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

As admittedly a non-atheist, I drew parralells between the ministry of Jesus Christ vs. the Pharasees of the day. That is, one being concerned about love and valuing human life and the other about politics and power.

As for 'religion', I guess it all depends on how you define it.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

''As for 'religion', I guess it all depends on how you define it.''

We are not going to start the ''Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship'' chant, are we? Christianity fits all the definitions of a religion and it does not fit all the definitions of a relationship. You do not know Jesus/YHWH personally, you have never met him. At best it is a relationship of sorts, one with the master and servant, or god and follower, which can be found in other religions too.

If you are sick of the ''I love Jesus 100% signature'', copy and paste this into your profile!

Re: Is this an atheist film?

Whoa, settle the kettle man. He's probably just talking about different branches of religion and how some are viewed as more officially organized than others.

Re: Is this an atheist film?


However, speaking as an atheist, this film demonstrated all the things that I find hypocritical and stupid about organised religion. I just wondered how other people saw it.

My friend, you have missed the point. It's not about hypocrisy and stupidity of organized religion. Get off the mindless mantra you have been taught.

Join the human race. The film is about the cruelty of politics, economics, and the human condition. No human endeavor is immune from choosing the lesser of two evils, and if you think otherwise, then your mother raised a fool.


It's only hubris if I fail

Re: Is this an atheist film?

That doesn't make sense. Explain yourself.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

Never mind.

It's only hubris if I fail

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

Well, no, that's not what I meant. I was referring to the dilemma of the Cardinal. He had to choose political expediency (preserving the existence of the Jesuit order in Europe) over the lives of his priests at the Mission and the flock they pastored.

It's only hubris if I fail

Re: Is this an atheist film?

The cardinal, right, I get you. However, I disagree that that is what the film is about.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

Really? Then why does the film begin and end with his writing a letter to the Pope?

Are you sure you watched this film???

It's only hubris if I fail

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

I see it as Christianity (or any religion for that matter) as being just as expendable as anything else in this world as far as profit is concerned (I'm an atheist).

Re: Is this an atheist film?

What made you think that? That was not the choice the Cardinal had to make. It was the choice between a far off mission field or the church in Europe. He chose the the limb instead of the body. Nothing to do with money, but perseverence.

I agree that church has made (and still makes) mistakes as it comes to power and money. But I think Father Gabriel embodies the true message in this movie: no compromise, no violence, just love.

In my opinion the Cardinal made a bad choice. Talking about limb and body. In the bible Paul writes about the suffering of a limb which causes the whole body to suffer. No doctor, no operation but the whole body facing consequences.
Jesus talked about the good shepherd leaving his flock searching for that 1 lost sheep. I think the Cardinal should have joined with Gabriel and the rest.

by the way, I find the movie cover posted on IMDB a bit misleading. It depicts Robert the Niro with a sword. But that's not the mission. On the DVD I have it depicts the missionary falling from the waterfall tied to a cross. That is what this movie is about: sacrifice of love. Not in a violent way, but a peaceful way.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

Well said, monum.

It's only hubris if I fail

Re: Is this an atheist film?

Very well put.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

Monum, i didn't just mean profit as in financial. I mean, that, when push comes to shove, religion isn't about the individual, but about the masses. As you said yourself, a few hundred were killed to save a few thousands.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

I'm turning the thread slightly to examine it from a different perspective. The movie is about accepting death, choosing to die only once, and then making courageous moral choices in the "darkness" of faith vs. the expediency of compromising, then dying the 1000 deaths of a coward. By "darkness" of faith I mean that the characters make their decisions amidst doubts, with no assurance of God's rescue. They're betting everything. That's gospel. That's the choice we all face, whether you believe in God or not.

Re: Is this an atheist film?



<<<<<<I could go into how so many lives have been ruined because of authority figures making a choice for the greater good and there are obvious parallels but "that would turn the thread into an ugly political debate.">>>>>>


yet that's exactly what the original poster intended. the message of this film is ultimately much simpler.. for the film merely is an ode to human empathy, devotion, and sacrifice for the plight of those less fortunate... and considering that this film's most 'beautiful' characters, other than the amerindian natives themselves, are catholic priests, it is ludicrous beyond belief to attempt to paint this as an indictment on the catholic church or organized religion.. for ultimately, no religion is totally perfect.. re: they all ultimetely rely on the quality of the human heart to have meaning. in other words, the fault lies with human frailty, not with the religious message.

this beautiful film inspires the soul to new heights of sensitivity, empathy, and awareness.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

Catalina.... your assessment of this film couldn't be more spot-on....

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Is this an atheist film?


Get off the mindless mantra you have been taught.
Irony!


"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

As a Christian when I saw this in '86 in the theater and now as a minister, the layers in this movie are complex.
Understand that Reagan was working against congress and arming "freedom fighters" against the government of Nicaragua. This was probably the most blatant act of our nation in trying to rid Latin America of "Communists." Liberation Theology was at it's zenith, perhaps fading, as the death of Oscar Romero in 1980 still hung like a cloud over the region.
Jeremy Irons, Father Gabriel, portrays one dominant thread of christian teaching and tradition: God is love. At it's best, it sacrifices itself, himself, in love for others.
De Niro, Mendoza, represents another thread, God calls us to fight for justice, to battle it with all our strength and courage.
This movie had the ability to speak out of history, address the current politics in the USA, boldly argue two passionate positions within the faith community and dared to challenge various communities within the church with a question: what does your faith really mean?
I hope this helps.
Peace, David

Re: Is this an atheist film?

the film isnt atheist. it has heavily been influenced by liberation theology

Re: Is this an atheist film?

As an historian, I can tell you that what I take from the film has really very little to do with religion per se, but rather any body politic competing against another for firm footing or the upper hand, with innocents harmed in the process. If you study Latin American history with any depth, you will find that while religion often presents as the institutional "face" of numerous situations, the reality of the situation really has little to do with religion at all.
That being said, there are so many valuable layers in this film that it would be a sad disservice to attempt to reduce it to terms of atheism versus organized religion.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

The mission is the best religious movie ever made.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

I'm curious, donuteater, what about the movie makes it the "best" religious movie "ever made." That's a pretty big claim, I'm just curious to know from your point of view, what makes it the best ever?

Re: Is this an atheist film?

Well here i'm trying!
Maybe i should have used the word spiritual instaid of riligious.I saw The mission in 86 when it came out and it totaly grabed me!I was 16 then.I'v seen alot of good religious films but this film showed how a human can change from a sinner to well a better person.I am talking about Mendoza,De Niro's character,who was a slavedriver,brother killer first to where he changed through the word of the bible and a damngood Jezuiet priest,played by Jeremy Irons and became a priest himself.Now you have 2 priests here,one who believes they can help the Guarani indians through praying(Irons) and one who believes helping them with the sword(De Niro).
Both men want to help the Guarani,who's right who's wrong.You see it's asking the questions.In life there never is a straight anwser.You have to do the quest for life and search for the awnser yourself.
In the end they both die,the only survivors from the Guarani vilage are a couple of kids, they will be the new generations,will remember there people and the priests but also the violents and uglynes what the Spanish and Portugese soldiers did.The future lies with the next generation it's our task to help them to survive and live this world full of questions,goodness and evil.That is also what Jesus did but also other religious figures.The film has all dualities of life as we know it.WHy are there priests in the first place there?The guarani where perfectly happy without trying to change theme into Catolics.Religian,Politics it is all there in the film.
The mission for me is the best religious/spiritual film because it's well made,there is stuff to think about,the fantastic music alone by Ennio Morricone can change a sinner into better person.Now another good spiritual film for me is Martin Scorsese's The last temptation of Christ,another well made film who dares to ask qustions.
So here you go elly-anne!You don't have to agree with me but you have a little idea about my point of view about The mision!

Re: Is this an atheist film?

You make some great observations, but I'm glad you qualified your use of the word "religious" to include "spiritual", because that was what was making me wonder how you came to the conclusion that you did.

Again, great observations. "Dualities" was a great characterization.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

Thanks!

Was Mendoza Spanish or Portuguese?

Donuteater, I think your comments and observations are super.

When this film was released in the 80's, it was the height of liberation theology, and U.S. interventionist involvement in Latin America (i.e., funding the contras in Nicaragua, invading Grenada, etc.) to "fight communism". All the more that the themes resonated.

By the way, in the Wikipedia section, it says that Rodrigo Mendoza's character (played by Robert de Niro) was Portuguese. I thought he was a Spaniard, just like Father Gabriel.

The reason this issue has bearing is that the movie makes it appear that only the Portuguese were into slave-trading. But so were the Spaniards at this time, and Mendoza was one of them.

Re: Was Mendoza Spanish or Portuguese?

To me, it doesn't matter if Mendoza was a Spaniard or not.

What does matter though, is that the Spaniards in the movie proclaim that they aren't pro-slave-trading, but as Mendoza and the audience knows, they're lying....


RIP Ian....

Re: Is this an atheist film?

I would definitely, as well, say no to the atheist question. It was based on actual evidence written by the Jesuits, Portuguese/Spanish, and many other primary sources that corroborate much of what is expressed in the film:

The political strife between the church and state (lets not forget this is during the time of the Bourbon Reforms).

Actual Jesuit establishments with the Indians and their constant struggle against the Spanish, Portuguese, Mamelucos (16, 17th centuries) and even other indigenous peoples.

In the end, I seriously doubt the writer and director were trying to portray some sort of theology in the end, but the matter of how FUBAR religion can make society.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

I think it's more against organized religion and its corruption rather than religion itself. The Jesuits are depicted as being generally good people, if a bit naive, for standing up for their beliefs and principles.

However, it should be noted that Robert Bolt (the screenwriter) was an agnostic/atheist so no doubt this informed his depiction of characters/events in the film.

There may be honor among thieves, but there's NONE in politicians!

Re: Is this an atheist film?

The Mission was an excellent film because it depicted the complexity of the human condition, with an overlay of faith, religion and spirituality - demonstrating the connectedness of all of them. The Jesuits' role in the New World is underplayed through history, largely because they - unlike the Franciscans - were not so linked to national governments.

As to the timing of The Mission coinciding with Liberation Theology and ridding Latin America of the radical left - I support Liberation Theology, but have nothing but contempt for the radical left. And The Mission had nothing to do with either of them.

I do get a hoot whenever "atheists" devote attention to religious themes - so preoccupied with opposing religion, that they turn their opposition into . . . religion: fervent, proselytizing, the entire world viewed through their movement.

Hey atheists and secularists: the Church has been the originator, inspiration, and custodian of Western Civilization. If you want to know what happens to a world when "organized religion" is hostile to beauty, try Islam.

"Imagine I had placed into my IMDB signature a clever saying regarding people like you."

Re: Is this an atheist film?

"the Church has been the originator, inspiration, and custodian of Western Civilization."

You mean like when many great works of art from classical, pre-christian culture were banned and almost written out of history? Or how about how free thought, which before the church was prevalent, was turned into grounds for burning at the stake, or how philosophy was reduced from the likes of the work of Plato to discussions concerning how many angels can fit at the tip of a needle? How about how such amazing Greek discoveries such as that the earth is round and how wide and big around it is were, due to contradiction with the bible, forced to be forgotten? How about how algebra or zero, being conceived of by muslims, were also banned?

It wasn't for a thousand years, until the beginning of the renaissance, that western culture could pick up where it had left off, and not without great resistance from the church.

I also find it hard to believe that the church could be both the originator and inspiration of Western Civilization given that western civilization had already existed for thousands of years before the church ever existed. As for me and, I assume, anyone with a basic understanding of western history, I'd choose to live in pagan Greece or Rome before I would ever think to subject myself to the dehumanizing efforts of the church. And thanks to the free thought and far more advanced civil systems during these pre-christian times, I'm sure I'd probably live a more inspired, long, clean, and prosperous life than I would under any church.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

It is impossible to engage in dialogue with anyone so intentionally blind. Your points are so profoundly wrong - factually and contextually - that it must stem from either personal bitterness and the resulting demand that we view the world through your warped prism, or the other kind of ignorance that stems from receiving then promoting wrong information. They're both bad, and could well be Specimen A of either genre. Originators of bitter posts like yours are more effective when they at least conceal their anger. Putting it on such conspicuous display only helps us more quickly grasp your kind. I am sure you would have been right at home during the horrors of the French "Revolution," where the lackeys in charge directed a return to the pre=Christian markers you promote in your post. Chaos, more terror, murder, elimination of ordered society. As to your desire to live in pagan Greece or Rome because of their cultural superiority, I can only laugh and wonder what picture book of those times you have on your coffee table. I'd rely less on the pretty pictures and find out what really went on. Then come back and lecture us.

What a goof.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

"It is impossible to engage in dialogue with anyone so intentionally blind."

Nice way to avoid the challenge of a debate. If I am wrong then argue your point and tell how so. There are many personal jabs at me in your post and you seem to assume much about me. The only personal information I gave out however consists of me saying I'd rather live in Rome than the pre-renaissance church. Yet you can somehow gather that I am bitter and angry... and would have favored the french revolution (seriously, WTF?). I am not overly bitter, nor am I angry. I am not personally affected by the church so I cannot see how that is so. What did bother me was YOUR misrepresentation of the church's role and one thing I do not like is the mutilation of history. After several readings of your most recent post I have found nothing that even attempts to defend your original claim that "the Church has been the originator, inspiration, and custodian of Western Civilization", which as I have said, is not only wrong and improbable, but also impossible (unless the popes have had a time machine all along, tricky bastards).

As I stated before: THE CHURCH CANNOT ORIGINATE NOR INSPIRE SOMETHING PREDATING IT BY THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

The majority of my post attempted to disprove your claim that it was a custodian. Even if I were wrong on that point, then I am still right in that you were very, VERY, wrong on everything else.

"I have... nothing but contempt for the radical left."

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about: you claim that I am angry, bitter, blind, and ignorant, yet you proudly proclaim your own anger and then are blind enough to decry me for what you contend is mine.

Not like any of that personal stuff matters. All that matters is the truth: the church did NOT originate nor inspire western civilization. Go ahead and try to stick to your original claim.


PS... Your post is rude, immature, lacking of debatable content, and contains name-calling.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

My oh my! An eight-paragraph response. I must have hit the mark. And made my target very, very angry. He appears gloomy even.

So, let's take it this way, Sunshine. IMDB documents an industry based largely in Los Angeles, actually named La Ciudad de Nuestra Senora de Los Angeles, or City of Our Lady of the Angels.

So, calm down a bit and let's take this step by step, shall we hon?

No Jesus, no apostles, no apostles, no Church, no Church, no Catholic Spain, no Catholic Spain, no Franciscans, no Franciscans, no California, certainly no Ciudad de Nuestra Senora de Los Angeles, and if no Ciudad de Nuestra Senora de Los Angeles, no IMDB and, likely, no you.

Got it sweetheart?

Re: Is this an atheist film?

What are you... a 60+ year old woman?

Your train of thought is insane and I'm filled with not anger but a very sick and uncomfortable feeling in my gut as it sinks in that granny has gotten out of her cage at the old folks home again and is now attempting to flirt with me.

I think your inability to stay on topic and creation of such an incoherent response is evidence enough that you'll continue to evade the prospect of an actual debate and are therefore not intellectually worth it. I will take great pleasure in copying your posts and emailing them to some friends for laughs, and for that, I thank you.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

You are very welcome.

But Puddin', please don't send copies of your e-mails and posts to your 60-year old female friends, or anyone in "granny" age range, because they may find your sexist, ageist comments to be offensive.

Yet, you are kind of cute, in a ranting, gloomy, silly sort of way.

/s/ Granny

Re: Is this an atheist film?


Hey atheists and secularists: the Church has been the originator, inspiration, and custodian of Western Civilization. If you want to know what happens to a world when "organized religion" is hostile to beauty, try Islam.


Oh wow.

There was a time when Islamic Civilization was the most advanced civilization in the world. It was also time when Western Civilization was "hostile to beauty". For unwashed Europe it was "Dark Ages", for Arabia and Al-Andalus it was not.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

First of all, the notion that Islam was the advanced force of anything (save violence) is quaint. Spread by the sword, and a political belief system rather than a genuine religion, it has been the scourge of the West since, oh, 638. There may have been pockets of intellectual robustness, but look around most of the Islamic world today - stuck somewhere in the 7th Century. If once so enlightened, when did the huge steps backward occur? Fact is, there was no step backward since there was no significant advance in the first place. (And please, save the tired examples of the arch and Arabic numerals.)

Second, whatever may have been the case yesterday is manifestly not the case today. Islam, its books, and its most vocal leadership (without counterpoint) preach violence, misogyny, and intolerance. How many mosques are there in Rome, center of Christendom? Dozens. How many Christian churches are there in Mecca? None. Of course, we'll never actually know, because non-Muslims can't even travel there.

Please oh please, do begin your sermon on the moral and social equivalence of all religions.

"But I'm a Democrat. What has happened to my Party?"

Re: Is this an atheist film?

And then the truth still is the Dark Ages' smelly European Christian barbarians were "hostile to beauty" of the more advanced Islamic civilization. And this on religious reasons.

Even slaughtering Jews in the process, too. Rock on!

Re: Is this an atheist film?

Ummm, ok, whatever you say.

"But I'm a Democrat. What has happened to my Party?"

Re: Is this an atheist film?

Also Islamic religion is several hundred years younger than the Christian one.

And several hundred years ago the very mainstream Christian clergymen were burning people (including "even" the less mainstream Christians) alive in the city squares full of onlookers. And other such things.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

The parallel with Islam as "the source" of a great civilization is very relevant. Indeed, this is the most popular argument with Islamic fundamentalists: Islam gave us a great civilization, and the only way to have it back is to return to the true spirit of Islam (whatever that is). By the way, you can make a much stronger claim about Islam being the originator of "Islamic civilization" than Christianity being the originator of "Western civilization". Personally, I don't think religion itself has had any role in building civilizations. It's mainly economic, geographical, and political factors sometimes taking religious manifestations. If given full control, organized religion is more likely to stifle progress of any kind, rather than nurture it.

Re: Is this an atheist film?

Religious factors were very important in both cases.

Islam united the Arabs and then the Middle East to the one common cause, one identity (soon really two after the Sunni/Shia schism, but anyway) and more or less one culture. Civilizational advance of the Arabs was great (Persians of course had an advanced civilization since the ancient times).

Christianity led to the downfall and fracture of the already united and technologically and culturally advanced (and relatively tolerant, even as at the same as brutal and bloody as everyone else) Roman Empire into dozens of mostly tiny states and kept the Western Europe (except the Iberian Peninsula for a time being, guess why) in the Dark Ages until the Renaissance. That's a very destructive influence.

Buddhism really had not much effect on the East, in comparison.

Anyway, the film clearly presents its deeply-believing Jesuit protagonists as the completely good guys (including the powerful transformation of a godless slaver into a heroic warrior for Christ and against the opressors, and another choosing a peaceful martydom also for JC, it's two kinds of religious fanatics a few could really object to). How could it be perceived by anyone as "an atheist film", I don't know. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186830/ is "an atheist film".

Re: Is this an atheist film?

Where on earth did you learn your history: the U of Revisionism?

Christianity manifestly did not produce the Dark Ages - which instead were induced by invasions of Imperial Rome by tribes from the North. It was the monastery system of Ireland that becamse repository of Western learning and begain evangelizing, eventually to restore "light" to Europe.

Luckily, I attended a Catholic university, unaffected by the outlandish revisionism that has taken hold of most institutions of "higher" learning. Detach Christianity from the western construct, and voile! No western construct. Man, you people are historical illiterates.
Top