Talk:The Mission (1986 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Christian films task force.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 366 days may be automatically archived by when more than 6 sections are present.

Intervention of the Spanish in the mission battle

I would like to start a discussion about a thing I read in the article and I dont agree with. The edition says the Spanish army is between the forces that take part in the "battle in the Mission" against the indians and some of the jesuits and that the Spanish commander was the one who ordered to kill the unprotected priest, ladies and children. That is not said in any part of the film. Why they were Spaniards and not Portugese?

Taking into account that the Indians were protected by the Spanish King laws (Leyes de Indias) I doubt any Spanish commander would take part in a battle against poor and disarmed indian ladies, children and priests.

The real "Guarani War" saw several fights and a big battle between the Spanish-Portugese army and the Guaranis, but after the joint army won the last battle they found no resistance when they occupied the Missions. So no Spanish commander ordered in the real world to kill any disarmed priest, ladies and children. Please give your opinion and vote if the article should define the soldiers entering the Mission and the commander of them as Spanish or don't specify it.

Thank you all. --Ebanobre (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I have watched the film several times, and I will do it again just because of that conversation. Maybe some details in the movie are made up, but the cruel truth is that Spanish Conquistador weren't merciful. Try to think about the cruelty of human nature and you would notice that it is possible to do things which can be seen in that movie. Irena Plahuta (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watching the movie it's fairly clear both Spanish and Portuguese troops take place in the final battle. The troops who attack by land are definitely Spanish, the ones who come by boat Portuguese. They're easily distinguished by uniforms: powder blue and white for the Spanish, darker blue and red for the Portuguese. Historical reality does not factor into a fictional portrayal. --96.247.149.7 (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's false. If spanish conquistador were or weren't merciful is irrelevant, the fact is that the troops were portuguese and not spanish. It's clear not only on film, on Robert Bolt's screenplay too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.155.108.71 (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The troops in white are Spanish. We see them escorting the Cardinal's carriage earlier in the film - when he arrives at what has already been shown to be a Spanish colony. At the end of the film the Cardinal holds the Spanish Governor to be complicit in the massacre - why would he do that if it had been a purely Portuguese affair? An actor named Rafael Camerano is even credited as the "Spanish Commander" in the end titles, if you don't believe me you can look it up on IMDB here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0131450/. Whether the Spanish were involved historically is irrelevant. The film features Spanish troops; Spanish troops should be mentioned in the article. 90.246.42.145 (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommercialVideo&7

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3jBFgpiDcOaQTNLN3pPbF9LSzA/edit

"Wrong?"

Could WikiPediaLike compile feedback with the question "Yes?", regional editors selecting for cultural profile?

In other words, if One thinks the movie sucked, that is not an answer. "Creative Cooperation" could be a tag I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.165.16 (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you are on about but if it is about the feedback feature at the bottom of the article that is for feedback about the article not about whether you liked the film or not. MarnetteD | Talk 20:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception section?

Where is the critical reception section of this film? There are just a few sentences in the lead paragraph about how the film was viewed when it came out, and while those statements are presumably factual, they imply that the movie was universally acclaimed, which I know for a fact, having read the reviews at the time, is not true. The reader needs a sense of how it was received, the political context in which it was made, and how it is generally viewed today. Dylanexpert (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of musical themes in need of clarification?

In the past week I've been making a study of The Mission and analyzing its themes and reuses of music. I find the current breakdown of the film's themes to be slightly confusing on these two lines:

"Beginning with a liturgical piece (On Earth as It Is in Heaven) which becomes the "Spanish" theme, it moves quickly to the "Guaraní" theme, which is written in a heavily native style and uses several indigenous instruments. Later, Morricone defines the "Mission" theme as a duet between the "Spanish" and "Guaraní" themes."

On study of the film, I'm worried that these lines aren't worded quite right. The soundtrack piece "On Earth as It Is in Heaven" begins with the Spanish theme, and then gradually becomes a duet between the Spanish and Guarani themes. But not only is the "Mission" theme itself not a duet between these two themes, right now I can't find a context of the Mission theme being a duet between themes at all.

Maybe finding the actual quote from Morricone can clear up the confusion, but right now neither this article nor the article specifically devoted to the soundtrack can give me a reference. Maybe have a 'citation needed'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiverBeyond (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Course working with this article

A group of Virginia Tech students are working on this article under my supervision. They are engaged in improving it. The group's involvement (not individual editors) in the article will not take more than two weeks. Though we are working on this article as a group, we are aware that the article belongs to the community and that our contributions are guided by Wikipedia's rules and practices. If you see areas where we can improve, please, let us know. And, do please, share your thoughts and contributions. Our involvement, as a group, should not preclude your inputs.

The areas of focus are:

synthesizing
sources
reorganizing
Fact-checking
prose

Thanks and Cheers, Historiador (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Mission (1986 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720142105/http://artsandfaith.com/top100/ to http://artsandfaith.com/top100/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]