Although I favor the idea that Scorsese said most of what he needed to say. When a strong film in my opinion shows us an easy answer I always figure some studio exec figures nobody can figure it out without the obvious line/visual at the end, especially a North American audience who are constantly spoiled with feel good tidy endings.

Scorsese probably is “Meh” it’ll make the viewers who don’t get it in the first place happy. The rest can argue about it in film school.

Some bits of this film remind me of “The Last Temptation of Christ”. If you like a redeemer who never faulters that film alienates you to the point of leading protests. If you like to meditate on what it would be like to be a fallible human burdened with being the son of god, it’s a mind blower.

Another good watch if you’re an opera fan is the “Dialogue of the Carmelites”. Not many operas have rendered me stunned, but that one did it. (There is a video somewhere, but doubt it has the same impact of a live performance with music rattling your soul.)

Your last para is the most interesting bit. I believe you are right from top to bottom of your comment most specifically this last bit.

But this is a visual medium problem. Right? So let’s say theologically, you are matching up with what Scorcese was trying to say (which is a leap, he might be saying more something about all roads lead to heaven, but we’ll go with your interpretation for now) that it’s actually a heart issue that really matters. In a movie, (heck even in life) how would one show a decidedly mind and heart decision? Usually a director and screenplay writer utilize external tokens of an internal truth. But its the external tokens that are a problem here. It’s this external token that he steps on. Its the external symbol that is the question!

So here’s the question. Was the small crucifix the symbol that connoted an internal heart posturing? Or was the small crucifix there to denote exactly the thing… that he actually still revered the item, and it’s bigger role in his life? Do you get what I’m saying here? It’s complicated.

I personally believe, if I recanted today externally, but not internally, that it wouldn’t make an ounce of difference in my relationship with God. The sin that I do each day is forgiven regardless. That was taken care of on the cross, I’m covered throughout my entire life. Should I sin that grace may abound? (to quote Paul) NO! But I’m forgiven. And I’m forgiven for the cowardly thing I do that denounces him externally. I wouldn’t denounce him even though I knew I could. But I wouldn’t (he says while comfortably sitting on his couch in his well heated front room)… I hope! hahah. Anyway, it’s complicated… but speaks to the failure in the movie to convey that deeper meaning. OR, maybe Scorcese communicated exactly what he intended, which was that the icon is what mattered. And I definitely don’t agree with that.

I am not an expert on Christianity, etc. But some things I really liked:

I think it depicted a how what most christians now view as more symbolic emblems of their faith were viewed as an actual physical embodiment of their faith. I’m not saying that blessed objects aren’t revered, but faith now for many revolves understanding the “message” and whether your own actions embody it, versus having a physical way to connect to your faith. I may be wrong, but I think many viewers didn’t connect because what’s the big deal about apostatizing? The focus now would be “Dude under duress you claimed to give up your faith and faked it to save others, not just yourself. But you held onto the belief where it counts, in your heart and never accepted another truth. God will get that.” But stomping on that symbol for many believers would have felt like physically stomping on God and in a time where actions held far more weight than intentions, this went beyond physical preservation. It would be accepting eternal damnation for disbelieving.

I liked the brutal portrayal of a medieval existence. Whether you were scratching out a meager survival in Europe or Japan, if you were at the bottom of the food chain the hope that god when you die god would deliver you to paradise for your dogged faith was palpable. It’s a modern expectation to have a content life, few peasants expected not to have a life of struggle. Their understanding of Christianity was simplistic and shaped by their culture, but it was sincere. Perhaps a poke at how we want to cherry pick what we believe nowadays by contrast.

Although I felt the portrayal of Japanese shogun class was too slanted the role of faith was clearly a more political issue. Their concern (understandably and rightly) was not what the peasants believed in, but who controlled that belief. At the time of this film the Catholic Church was in control of nearly every government in Europe. Although Japan was often a bunch of feuding states, it wouldn’t take too much intelligence to figure out these priests converting people represent a subversive effort to control your country. Watching your people stop respecting established religious and social structures, and thenstart supporting and financing this foreign philosophy you have good reason to fear the long range implications. One look at some of those Spanish/Portuguese ships would also tell you that this invader has pretty deep pockets. Your main card is you are an island and if you go all protectionist with your foreign policy you can probably maintain control.

The pope and higher ranking church officials knew the church had to have political and financial control to survive. Lower ranking brothers like the ones in the movie probably were mostly blind to this overarching necessity. Their concerns were about recruiting followers and protecting the faith. In some ways the debates between the brother and the priest highlight this. The brother is continually trying to demonstrate strength of his faith and convince the inquisitor of the truth of Christianity. The inquisitor has a different theatre in mind. He knows what the brother actually believes is immaterial, but if he can make him appear to relinquish his faith that is going to put a dent in the invasion. Japan’s traditions to commoners will appear stronger than Rome’s. The inquisitor needs the brother to apostatize for propaganda reasons. Later setting him up with a home and wife is not a reward for behaving (at least not entirely), it’s theatre to show that the most faithful that Rome can send can be bent to embrace Japan.

Perhaps because faith was as much (if not more so) a political game as spiritual, the church emphasized the importance of demonstrating your faith. Questioning faith and the churches part in that was not just a spiritual issue. If it lost control of its hold on people’s faith it lost control of Europe. This is not to say there wasn’t sincere belief in god at all levels. But if the church excommunicated a prince or king, that would result not just in spiritual damnation. It would also result in political isolation. When the reformation took hold, the church lost more than spiritual domination.

This stranglehold on state business is why modern democracies demand separation of church from state. It’s not about what citizens believe (ergo freedom of religion), it’s who controls the country (overtly at least).

But I’m wandering away from my point. My point being that it was the interest of the church to convince its followers that their outward expressions of faith mattered more than anything. Introspection was certainly good, so long as it kept your thinking aligned with church doctrine and control. This belief is why it was unthinkable to the brothers in the film that the most faithful man they knew could have apostatized even though they would have also known torture was involved. And public torture occurred in Europe, so what that involved likely wouldn’t shock them entirely.

Finally our protagonist apostatizes. His handlers make sure he’s never in a situation where he can appear to still be faithful. He has a great job for public propaganda purposes of making sure religious symbols don’t make it into Japan. A job decently trained clerk could probably do just as efficiently, but it doesn’t send as strong of a message back to Rome.

The only thing I didn’t like was the cross tucked into the waistband at the end. Maybe for me it was clear that in all likelihood he hadn’t given up his faith in truth because he didn’t apostatize in the first place because the logic presented to him rendered his faith meaningless. But now his outward expression of faith is silenced and he is a shell. He goes about his life robotically. If he had actually embraced Buddhism, some sign of him being born again thru that faith would have been portrayed. Instead every expression and reaction is one of simple conformity not spiritual enlightenment. Tucking a cross in his wasteband seemed like a pretty heavy handed touch, in an otherwise compelling movie meant to make you meditate on “what is faith”.

Those things aside, Scorsese could’ve added a dark history lesson inasmuch as to present and inform movie goers of the real events which happened around 1633 (as told in movie’s narration).

For instance, no mention about the dreaded, horrific Inquisition going on in those times the Portuguese started in 1536; the Spanish earlier in 1478. In one instance, 3,000 New Christians in 1506 were massacred in Lisbon.

In contrast, Hideoyshi tortured and killed 26 Christians in 1587 as a warning after he had issued the first edict expelling Christian missionaries. History further shows the Japanese trying to prohibit Christianity in 1613 by expelling Christian missionaries. In 1624 the Spanish were expelled; in1638 Portuguese expelled.

Being expelled, banished is a lot different than the barbaric trials, torture, and consequent death thousands faced during the many years of the Christian Catholic Inquisition. The Scorcese film’s story is fiction and makes the Japanese culture of that time period seem worse than the Inquisition and the Padre characters like sweet lambs of God.

This film doesn’t adequately present how an advanced society, logical and polite, dealt with religious fanatics who came from their “dark age” civilization of the Inquisition and kept sneaking in to their country when asked to leave.

Scorcese’s ending of the movie may seem like devout Christianity prevails but the viewer should question further. What did the viewer learn? What would the viewer choose? Adhering to strict vows to save souls no matter the challenges faced; or, denouncing strict vows to save lives? History shows it appears the Japanese took action against the true, merciless Inquisitors of those times other cultures hadn’t and they ended up massacred by the thousands for not proving themselves Christian enough.

What the Spanish/Portuguese thought about and did to their New Christians:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Christian

This link is from a Christian academy regarding Japanese culture, history time lines in brief:

http://acad.depauw.edu/~mkfinney/teaching/Com227/culturalPortfolios/japan/worldview.htm

Interesting history not presented in the film:

http://peopleof.oureverydaylife.com/japanese-ruler-expelled-christian-missionaries-5573.html