SOME SPOILERS AHEAD! I am a history buff, and I honestly admit that I do enjoy movies which are set in the past, and where the director makes use of strong characterization to examine the events of a specific time period critically. I made the mistake, however, of thinking that this was a thorough indictment of European colonialism. It is not; rather, it is an expression of praise for one aspect of colonialism over another.
A history professor of mine commented on this movie during a speech on the how Spanish missionaries helped to erode Indian cultures during the Mexican colonial period. The Jesuit missionaries in this movie are portrayed as benevolent men who whatever they can to protect and improve the lives of their converts. Although I know nothing of the Jesuit missions of Paraguay and Brazil during the mid-eighteenth century, I do know, based on what I've read about the California missions, that there was a dark side to missionization. This side is left out of Joffe's film. The Mission does not show any neophytes being whipped for attempting to flee the mission settlement, or any epidemics of illnesses amongst the Indians brought by European colonization, which Catholic missionaries (I'm unsure of which order) viewed from a fatalistic standpoint as somehow being the will of God. Any traumatic change in lifestyle or abandonment of culture that a neophyte would have to undergo during the missionization process is ignored. The movie, rather than provide a balanced perspective on colonization, serves to buttress a historical fallacy that Catholic missionaries did no wrong to the Indians, and that it was only the upper clergy and greedy settlers who were the true villains. The depiction of the brutality of secular colonization, as well as the stunning locations and an extremely well done musical score probably helped this movie to win a Golden Palm. I recommend this movie for those who enjoy tragic endings and want to view a sample of the troubles brought by colonialism (not to mention a sample of the screenplay writer's agenda). Do not be fooled into thinking that this movie tells the whole story!
A history professor of mine commented on this movie during a speech on the how Spanish missionaries helped to erode Indian cultures during the Mexican colonial period. The Jesuit missionaries in this movie are portrayed as benevolent men who whatever they can to protect and improve the lives of their converts. Although I know nothing of the Jesuit missions of Paraguay and Brazil during the mid-eighteenth century, I do know, based on what I've read about the California missions, that there was a dark side to missionization. This side is left out of Joffe's film. The Mission does not show any neophytes being whipped for attempting to flee the mission settlement, or any epidemics of illnesses amongst the Indians brought by European colonization, which Catholic missionaries (I'm unsure of which order) viewed from a fatalistic standpoint as somehow being the will of God. Any traumatic change in lifestyle or abandonment of culture that a neophyte would have to undergo during the missionization process is ignored. The movie, rather than provide a balanced perspective on colonization, serves to buttress a historical fallacy that Catholic missionaries did no wrong to the Indians, and that it was only the upper clergy and greedy settlers who were the true villains. The depiction of the brutality of secular colonization, as well as the stunning locations and an extremely well done musical score probably helped this movie to win a Golden Palm. I recommend this movie for those who enjoy tragic endings and want to view a sample of the troubles brought by colonialism (not to mention a sample of the screenplay writer's agenda). Do not be fooled into thinking that this movie tells the whole story!