A good Scorsese, but not a great one

Rating: 7/10 (11 February 2017)

I didn't have incredibly high expectations when going into "Silence". Scorsese is a very solid filmmaker in my opinion, but I do not think that it would be fair to measure him by the same standards by which you would measure a Tarkovsky, Kubrick, or Kurosawa.
"Silence" is a good film. It has some strong imagery, a coherent narrative, a slow but progressive buildup, and a decent plot. But it is not a masterpiece, it simply cannot live up to a "Taxi Driver" or "Raging Bull". Here are my main criticisms:
The pacing was slow, but it kept going, and that was perfectly fine. It did however go awry towards the end. Two and a half hours is a while for a film, so you better wrap it up poignantly. This however did not happen. Spoiler: The film had several points, where a cut and an ending would have made sense, but instead it kept on going, throwing the dynamic off the balance. The first one of these was when Rodrigues had the choice whether to step on the icon to save his fellow Christians or not. God talked to him (in a slightly awkward fashion), he took the step forward, and on goes the story. Now this is excusable, but then we have Rodrigues and Ferreira sorting out Christian and non-Christian trade goods, which gave rise to another possibility of making a cut (e.g. them approving of goods of which they can tell that they have a Christian connotation, which the guards can however not recognize; if you look at the guards' facial expressions during the scene, you notice that they seem quite uncertain about some of the products). This was even amplified when the quite out-of-place voice of Dutch trader Dieter Albrecht appears out of nowhere to artificially prolong the whole scenario. We begin with narration, end with narration, and have a full cycle, but that did not happen either. Instead we go to his new family, see his continued devoutness, and we're still not done. First we need another scandal, more icky narration, and, finally, Rodrigues' death, just to show him holding the little icon in his dead palm. This point of true devotion was already made sufficiently, and could have been concluded upon decisively earlier.
Secondly, we have the narration itself. Even though this film spans 161 minutes, it leaves almost no breathing space. Here it seems like shots cannot stand on their own: they have to accompanied by some sort of narrative, explaining you what exactly you see, rather than giving you the opportunity to reflect and make up your own mind. Film is, first and foremost, a visual medium, and images need a certain space to flourish fully and effectively. Stuffing every little scene with some sort of auditory description takes away from cinema's cinematic aspect, and does the film more bad than good if you ask me, because the visuals were there. The cinematography got better and better throughout the film, and probably reached its apex in scenes such as the one where Rodrigues himself steps on the icon, but good cinematography alone cannot save a film, as the medium is an interplay of various different aspects. The crucifixion scene was strong as well, but the eventual narration pulled it down a bit it in my opinion, as it really was redundant.
The last point I noticed is just a minor criticism in the field of suspension of disbelief, so take it with a grain of salt or two: the film itself has a very serious topic, and also tries to address it in that manner, but sometimes it is almost as if a certain kind of comedy is being provoked. The story focuses on Portuguese Christian missionaries, conducting their secretive work in 17th century Japan. It thus seems a bit weird that everybody, particularly impoverished people from the countryside, get by using English, while a lot of the high officials quite clearly struggle with said language. And of course it makes sense that the Japanese in the film would speak English with quite a strong accent mostly, but why bother including scenes when the Japanese try to pronounce English terms and the Portuguese cannot understand them? Is it to show their deep devotion, to create a certain kind of humour among the likes of being burned alive and sea crucifixions, or is just to seem more "authentic"? This one I am a bit puzzled about, but surely it is more of a minor question. The acting was compelling for the most part, but at times it seemed a bit off as well. Adam Driver's performance here is definitely not comparable with his role in Jarmusch's "Paterson", but then again I didn't expect it to be either.
All in all, despite the criticism that I have regarding "Silence", it is a solid piece of Scorsese directing, that can probably be watched without too many regrets. I cannot universally and doubtlessly recommend it to each and everyone though. If you however cherish compelling cinematography, feel free to give it a try, as the Oscar bid for that category (its only one) seems well-deserved.