Talk:Silence (2016 film)

Draft for Silence (2015 film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Silence at Draft:Silence (2015 film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. Wildroot (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Countries of origin

Regarding these edits [1][2], the most reliable sources list the film's origin as USA-Taiwan-Mexico [3][4][5]. Weirdly, certain cinemas in the UK list the film as a coproduction of USA-Italy-Mexico-Japan (maybe this is based on the nationality of the human producers, as opposed to the corporate production companies) [6]. @Koresdcine: It has to be wrong to omit Taiwan as a country of origin considering that CatchPlay is one of the film's production companies. The very reputable British film magazine Sight & Sound lists the film as a USA-Mexico-UK-Taiwan coproduction [7], I guess based on the idea that AI Film could be seen as a British company. I don't see anything on the film's official American site www.silencemovie.com or at Paramount's web site, concerning country of origin. In my view Wikipedia should follow Variety on this point in the infobox. Mathew5000 (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Since yourself said that magazine is "very reputable", then just list the countries from the magazine.--Koresdcine (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Incredibly violative plot length

The plot as of this moment is nearly 1,700 words — wayyyyy over the 400 to 700 of WP:FILMPLOT. I'm trimming it now to the consensus length. Please do not edit Wikipedia film-article plots without being aware of this guideline. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. It's now at 658 words, which gives leeway to add whatever other plot clarifications may be necessary --Tenebrae (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I politely asked User:Rms125a@hotmail.com on his talk page here that his plot "tweak" took the plot from 658 words to 842, severely violating WP:FILMPLOT. He responded by inserting an 872-word plot. This is edit-warring and violative of WP:FILM consensus ... the consensus at WP:FILMPLOT, I should say, since his last edit-summary didn't seem to understand that.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I know I did not expand the plot section -- I have not even seen the film. I know I just tweaked it. How do you know how many words are in that section alone? Did you count them one by one? Are you mistaking re-paragraphing as adding?
Also, what are the "200 words" I allegedly added? Additions to text are by character not word, unless you count them one by one. Also, let's not forget our old friend IAR, upon whom we can always call when in need. Quis separabit? 18:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae:I am waiting for an answer. Quis separabit? 18:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. I trimmed the plot here to 658 words. He increased it here to 842, with the edit summary that read "tweaked." I restored the 700-or-less version and he increased it here to, I believe, 872 words. To get the word count, just go to the live page, copy-paste the plot into a Word doc, then from the Word pulldown menu use Tools > Word Count. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: LOL. I am Rms125a@hotmail.com (username ≠ signature). Quis separabit? 23:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing "incredibly violative" about 142 words if they are needed. I think I know what happened. After your unilateral mass reverts of thousands of words in three separate edits, I rv back to the preceding edit because such mass removal of text needs at minimum, other pairs of eyes ([8]). Therefore that version -- which contains plot information I couldn't possibly have known as I have not seen the film -- was the default one which I then trimmed. I am not going to invoke IAR and am letting the matter drop given your passion and vehemence. Quis separabit? 23:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

"Crudely carved" fumi-e?

Fumi-e says that "Many, if not all, of these works were made with care, and they reflected the high artistic standards of the Edo period." And I can see how an inquisition would want the image to be clear so it would "count". Is the one in the film crudely carved? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Which of them? I was under the impression that when it's seen on film (4-5 times) it's a different one most of times! Also: It being the end of the inquisition more or less, probably the most proficiently manufactured icons would not be in use any more/would have worn from a lot of stepping on them already. Not sure if the movie would want to get that realistic, but it certainly shows a lot of stepping on them. Diceypoo (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No, none of the fumi-e in the film are "crudely carved." Some of them are worn, but this is probably an intentional creative decision meant to imply how many times these fumi-e have been used/stepped on. I went ahead and changed the wording in this article (and the novel's article, which used similar wording) to simply say "a carved image of Christ." It was called a "crucifix" instead of an "image of Christ" in this article. However, it's clear from looking at screenshots of various fumi-e used in the film that they are not simply images of the crucifixion. They can contain any imagery depicting a moment in the life of Jesus, such as Mary nursing Jesus as a baby. Lairfans12 (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

New section about the depiction of torture. Physical vs. psychological and being tortured vs. seeing torture

The premise and indeed the ending of the movie navigate the waters of how the (nobody expects the Japanese!) Inquisition became well-versed in how to deal with martyrdom in the face of torture and recanting. As mentioned here:

Here the poor wretches were tortured by having incisions made in the flesh, into which the boiling water was slowly poured. If this treatment failed to make the sufferer recant, he was then suspended or thrown into the hot springs. Since Kawa- chi's avowed object was to get apostates rather than martyrs, he had a doctor present, who intervened when the victim appeared to be on the verge of expiring. The martyr was then carefully treated for a few days until he had recovered sufficiently to be subjected to the same round again. Despite all Kawachi's precautions, a few individuals did die under this treatment; but by these and other methods (branding, burning with red-hot pincers, sawing off limbs with a bamboo saw, etc.), he forced three hundred and seventy out of a total of four hundred to recant; these people were sent back to Nagasaki as free men.

...the once flourishing Christianity of Kyushu was to all appearance virtually extinct by the end of 1630...

The successful resistance of this party to the worst that the sulphur springs of Unzen could do was probably responsible for the abandonment of this particular form of torment and its substitution by the ana-tsurushi, or hanging in the pit. This diabolical invention is variously ascribed to Take-naka Uneme and to the (later) inquisitor, Inouye, and it largely replaced burning at the stake from 1632 on. Professor Anesaki states that this method consisted in burying the body in an upright position in a pit, so that only the head protruded. In this he is completely mistaken; and it is abundantly clear from the contemporary Portuguese and Dutch eyewitness accounts that the method involved bodily suspension in a pit or hole, as the Japanese name implies. The victim was tightly bound around the body as high as the breast (one hand being left free to give the signal of recantation) and then hung head downwards from a gallows into a pit which usually contained excreta and other filth, the    top of the pit being level with his knees [[is there a line missing here?]]. In order to give the blood some vent, the forehead was lightly slashed with a knife. Some of the stronger martyrs lived more than a week in this position, but the majority did not survive more than a day or two. This innovation achieved tremendous prestige among the inquisitors when its employment induced the apostasy of the aged Jesuit Provincial, Padre Christovao Ferreira, who gave the signal for recantation after enduring six hours of agony (October, 1633). [pages 352-353] 

(it is surprising/notable that at the start of the isolationist period here outsiders were allowed to take note of torture/executions) And also:

The great martyrdom at Nagasaki was also witnessed by a large and sympathetic crowd, but the procedure was subsequently tightened. At the martyrdom of the Jesuit Navarro and his companions in November of that year, the onlookers were not permitted to invoke the name of Jesus, nor to give the slightest sign of encouragement on pain of being cut down out of hand by the guards. Yet at the martyrdom of de Angelis and his forty-nine companions at Yedo in December, 1623, no attempt was made to prevent the Jesuit's preaching to the crowd, and to such effect that two of the bystanders rushed forward and vainly begged the presiding judges to let them join the martyrs.
This was about the last occasion on which such demonstrations of sympathy were permitted; for the authorities had by now come to realize that the deterrent effect of these public tortures was as a rule more than offset by the admiration aroused for the heroism of the sufferers. [page 343]

(There was another point in there to show the movie's idea that special heed was paid not to leave or indeed create bones/relics of martyrs after executions, but I can't find it atm.) All of which goes to show that there was some knowledge about Christianity in that the psychological/emphatic side of tortured was used, in confrontation with what before was a driving force in martyrdom. So having 'high-profile' padres recant (also the reason for changing to pit torture (of others) in the latter period the plot is placed in) is reasonable and surprisingly realistic for such a movie. How to sum all this up for the article beats me though, but it brings out the maleficent part of not stopping at physical torture but beating the missionaries with their own weapons (of keeping others from harm) and thus subduing them. Diceypoo (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2017

change "213 reviews" to "214 reviews". 87.21.185.150 (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Done -- Dane ^talk 20:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2017

Change "On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 85% based on 214 reviews, and an average rating of 7.5/10." to "On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 85% based on 215 reviews, and an average rating of 7.6/10." 212.216.196.247 (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Have you ever edited this site under a different identity? CityOfSilver 00:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.192.170 (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Although this was a tough call. Your requested edit is harmless and would improve this article's accuracy, but since you're a liar, an IP hopper, and someone who has spent a long time attacking Scorsese-related articles, I probably should have left it. CityOfSilver 16:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2017: Critical Reception

Please, add this excerpt from a review of Tampa Bay Times in the "Critical Reception" of this page: -Steve Persall of Tampa Bay Times praised the film, saying, "Silence is a monumental achievement in Scorsese's career, a project three decades in development, and his passion shows. It's the unofficial conclusion of Scorsese's theological trilogy, although disconnected in theme and form from The Last Temptation of Christ and Kundun and superior to both." Persall further added, "Only Scorsese could craft a film of such moral gravity for multiplexes and fascinate for nearly three hours." -95.248.255.101 (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done You are a long-term abuser. You have been blocked countless times. CityOfSilver 23:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

On Possible Exception to Article Protection

I am the person who largely rewrote this entire article back when the page was a mess in late 2015, early 2016. I mostly focused on the Production section; I got it to its current state and its been largely unchanged since then. I did all of this before signing up for an account. So, because I just signed up for an account, my account name will not appear in the article's change history. It seems there is a person vandalizing Scorsese articles, so given the newness of my account, I understand if those who protected this article are skeptical about my identity. Still, I was wondering if it would be possible for whoever protected the article to allow me to further edit the Production section. I have found a lot more information that would increase the article's accuracy. If it is not possible to let me edit the article, I will figure out what specifically I would like to have edited and post it here. However, I would prefer to be granted an exception as I think there is a lot (or at least a decent amount) to add.

The sources for this new information are:

An interview for the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-silence-martin-scorsese-profile-20161205-story.html

Scorsese's own words from a press conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZABh9ob6D7E

An interview with Scorsese for La Civilta Cattolica, a Jesuit periodical: http://www.laciviltacattolica.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/3996_interview_scorsese.pdf

Specifically, I would like to change the time he read the book from 1988 to August 1989 (per the Cattolica interview). I would also like to add additional information about when he obtained the rights (1990/91) and wrote the script drafts (first attempt was made a year after obtaining the rights, but Scorsese says the first real draft was finished in December 2006; this is all per the Cattolica interview). In addition, I would like to add a bit about part of the reason why Scorsese waited so long to make the film; specifically, he didn't feel he was ready to take on a book that was so complex (per the video and Cattolica interview). Information about financiers dropping out at various points (per the LA Times article) would also flesh out the section. There's more, but those are the most pressing changes I think should be made.

Like I said, if no exception can be made to the protection (I can think of no way to verify my identity [unless I can do so with my IP address somehow], so I would understand if that is the case), then I will type down specific edits instead and delete this section on the talk page to avoid clutter. Thank you.

Lairfans12 (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Lairfans12, has somebody answered this yet?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, not directly. But the La Civilta Cattolica interview is included as a helpful reference at the top of this talk page, and almost all of my edit suggestions have been incorporated into the article and sourced appropriately (whether it's due to my suggestions or not, I'm just glad those details have been included). The only things that weren't incorporated were the details on financiers dropping out and the timing of the first draft's completion. Now that the article is no longer protected, I may edit those two additional things into it. It all depends on figuring out which sections they will most appropriately fit into. Lairfans12 (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Lairfans12, I asked this as part of a Good Article review, which passed the article as good. The suggestions may have been incorporated then.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2017

In the "critical response" section change "217 reviews" to "219 reviews". 82.49.34.96 (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 04:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2017

Fucking change "219 reviews" to "220 reviews" 62.211.23.46 (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Avoid incivility. Civility is expected of users and editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

References

useless protection

Why the fuck there is protection until October on this page?? How about people who want to add edits on it???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.211.23.46 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 1 June 2017

Well, for one thing, we've have anonymous IPs making non-constructive edits, such as yours here. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Start Class

How is this film still classified as a Start class, it should be B or C class.--Paleface Jack (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: Following your useful recommendation above, I brought in a bank of enhancements to the article and have nominated it for peer review. If you have any requests for any further enhancements you might like to see brought into the article during peer review, and if you are still interested in this classification here, then this might be a good time to list them on a peer review since I have some free time in this coming week to bring such enhancements into the article. Cheers. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Use of "Father" as a priest title is not normally OK in Wikipedia articles

WP:HONORIFIC (Wikipedia's Manual of Style) says: "In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article."

Accordingly, I'm removing occurrences of "Father" as an honorific prefix. Where needed, I'll add text to state that a person is a priest. Mksword (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Mksword, I am not certain whether this also holds for articles about films, as these are (at least, partly) fictitious characters and neutrality in designating them maybe less of an issue. Please note also that most secondary sources on the film describe the characters as Father so-and-so or Padre s-and-so.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, those sources are not encyclopedias; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so therefore adheres to NPOV. The same reasons for NPOV in articles about factual matters make just as much sense in articles about fictitious things. Note that a number of exceptions are listed in WP:HONORIFIC. In addition, honorifics within quoted text are always acceptable. Mksword (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Mksword, allright then. I do believe there's also specific policy with regard to Christian clergy, but i can't remember the details.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding high-ranking priests of the Church, there is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy). For mere priests, WP:HONORIFIC is the applicable guide. It says: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for 'Father Coughlin' (currently at Charles Coughlin)". In other words, the honorific prefix "Father" (for priests) is not to be used unless, for a particular priest, the exception is justified. Mksword (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Mksword!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Mksword, in your first response to Farang Rak Tham, you state that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." And I wholeheartedly agree! However, in the "Talk" areas of MANY other articles/entries where I encourage the use of facts/details, the verification of facts/details/sources, and other things to improve the article's/entry's quality, I've been repeatedly told that Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia and need not be held to an encyclopedia's standards.

It's gotten to the point where I rarely even comment now. It seems that there is a group of people out there who'd rather negatively comment/debate/argue than try to improve an article's/entry's quality and respectability. As noted a few times here, and in other "Talk" areas, "vandalism" is becoming too common and effecting Wikipedia's respectability and authoritativeness.

Again, I thank you for saying that "Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia." 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Film's performance

I'm a bit surprised that there's not statement about the film's "extreme" underperformance (didn't even make half of its budget).

Almost every other article/entry where the film's box office was anywhere from a little above budget to a whole lot less than budget usually has a sentence like

Given the film's poor showing, it is considered to be a box office bomb.

And yet, nothing even remotely like that appears anywhere in the article/entry.

Is it because "the film is considered to be one of the director's greatest films of his career"?

Even great films can bomb.

Personal Note -- I just finished watching it and was not impressed. I thought it drudged along and a majority of the dialog/voice-overs was so low as to be unhearable and not understandable. I was constantly playing with the volume to hear what was said and not be blown out by the screaming/yelling.

Before getting to the end of the movie, I was already thinking that it probably did not do well at the box office. I was rather surprised when I read the article/entry to see HOW poorly it actually did.

Basically, just curious as to why there's no "box office bomb" statement, phrase, or 'acknowledgement.' 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the appropriate section for that would be Silence (2016 film)#Box office. There is some content in there that is very similar to what you are saying, though. But if you think the section should be rephrased, go right ahead, basing yourself on reliable sources of course.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I don't know what your personal opinion of the film has to do with the article. Regardless of that tangent, I agree that a more direct acknowledgement of its box-office-bomb status should be incorporated into the article. I will attempt to edit that into the lead section sometime soon. Lairfans12 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Contradictory

In the intro, "Scorsese refused to follow [The Wolf of Wall Street] up with any film other than Silence" paints the picture of a director repeatedly being kept from making his beloved movie and no longer prepared to stand for that abuse. Which is entirely contradictory to the picture painted in "Legal claims" where the director willfully (and arguably illegally) refuses to make Silence for decades, even when that's exactly what he's meant to be doing and what he promised to do. Needs fixing; makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E8:6:0:0:0:386 (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

That phrasing was part of this article before I made several edits from late 2015 to early 2016. I think it was an attempt to indicate that Scorsese was done putting the film off, that he was finally ready to make the movie. When I rewrote the article, I thought it was acceptable phrasing, so I kept it. Obviously, a bunch of other editors thought it was acceptable too, considering that it survived this long. However, I can absolutely see what you're saying. Think I'll go ahead and change that. Thanks for pointing it out. Lairfans12 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the new sentence: "After filming of The Wolf of Wall Street concluded in January 2013, Scorsese committed to following it up with Silence." Hope that's an acceptable, more neutral/consistent approach. Lairfans12 (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary Adjectives for Taiwan in the Intro?

To quote the introduction, " the film was shot entirely in the high-tech democratic industrialized developed country of [flag icon] Taiwan". I'm feeling some bias here, or at least unnecessary adjectives. Why couldn't we just say Taiwan? I think the page needs to be checked for neutrality again.

Zdavisgenki (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Zdavisgenki

Incorrect quote in "Analysis" Section

In the final paragraph oft the "Analysis" section currently says "Aaron Baker in his book A Companion to Martin Scorsese discussed aspects of the theological themes in the film stating that: "According to an analysis of the film by the Japanese-American theologian Fumitaka Masuoka, it pivots on the idea that the silence of God is in fact the message of God, being not the silence of nihil, or 'nothingness', but rather 'the "accompaniment" for the forsaken and the suffering', and the concomitant silence of Christians quietly hoping for salvation. Implicit here is what Matsuoka terms 'an element of uncertainty', a possibility that the nihil of emptiness, meaninglessness, and hopelessness will eventually prevail."

However in Baker's book it says "According to an analysis of the novel by the Japanese-American theologian Fumitaka Matsuoka". The cited Matsuoka is talking about Endo's book Silence, not the Scorsese film. In my opinion the above sentence should be completely deleted, as there is no point in citing that sentence once its made clear that it is about the book instead of the film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.198.217 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)