Grace and love versus politics and hatred

Rating: 9/10 (23 July 2013)

This film is a re-imagining of events surrounding The Treaty of Madrid in 1750 which formalised the transfer of Paraguayan territory from Spain to Portugal. Moreover, it focuses on the fate of the indigenous tribesmen who'd previously fled to Jesuit missions located within that territory to escape Portuguese slavers.
The film opens with a man dictating a letter. The man - Cardinal Altamirano, a papal emissary sent from Europe to meet with the Jesuits and slavers before deciding the fate of the disputed missions. The letter - a progress report to the Pope, recounting his visit and relaying his decision. As he begins to describe the events leading up to his visit, we are transported back in time to witness these events unfold.
Jesuit priests have established missions from which they strike out into the jungle to evangelise any indigenous tribesmen they encounter, risking martyrdom in the process. Meanwhile slavers, the antithesis of the Jesuits, prey on the same tribesmen in hope of capturing them and selling them into slavery.
We follow a priest and a slaver, Father Gabriel & Rodrigo Mendoza. At the outset these men are at odds with each other, but cruelest serendipity brings them together and eventually Rodrigo accompanies Gabriel to his mission to live among and serve the very people he once persecuted.
With the treaty already signed and the land transferred from Spain to Portugal, the Cardinal is sent to decide whether the missions are to remain under the Vatican's protection or simply be abandoned, effectively condemning the tribesmen living on the missions into slavery.
Caught in a "Hobson's choice" predicament, the cardinal quickly realises the right thing to do, yet it conflicts sharply with the church's precarious political dependencies. Protecting the missions will endanger the Jesuit order and betray the very church he serves. So the decision is all but made and his visit is nothing more than a perfunctory gesture.
This part is played well by Ray McAnally who for the most part conceals his true feelings and emotions, knowing they are unbefitting to his position.
The most interesting character is Rodrigo. His journey is a tragic one. Unbearable pain transforms him from monster to man of compassion but his new-found peace is short-lived. Threatened by the very forces he once served, he has to choose whether to stay true to the Jesuit way of love and allow the tribesmen to be slaughtered, or break his vows, and murder to defend them. A very cruel predicament to be put in after what he's just been through. One of DeNiro's best, and last great performances.
Then we have Father Gabriel. He embodies the love and compassion at the heart of his religion and people flock to him as a result - even Rodrigo and the otherwise hostile tribesmen are subdued. Jeremy Irons was very apt for this role, as if he believed the message behind the words.
The tribal chief was played well by Asuncion Ontiveros. On the face of it he could be just another tribesmen, but he exhibits this tacit authority, hard-earned dignity and an overt distrust of the outsiders that seems to befit a tribal leader in his position.
Chuck Low and Ronald Pickup have more one dimensional roles as the Protuguese slavers but they put in good performances nonetheless.
Liam Neeson, Cheri Lunghi and Aiden Quinn make brief appearances, but just not enough material to merit comment.
Personally, I would always rather see an accurate account of what happened rather than a crowd-pleasing or Oscar-winning fabrication. However screenwriters, directors and producers would probably argue that this is unrealistic because studios(and audiences to some degree) demand entertaining stories with heroes and villains, winners and losers, love interest, a moral or happy ending, and all within a very short period of time.
So maybe we need to learn that this is just how the movie industry works and stop expecting accurate history lessons from movies.
Long story short - we can take historical inaccuracies as a given in any historical film like this.
The direction and camera work is just superb throughout this film.
We have the signature scene of the film where a martyred priest is tied to a crucifix and sent over a waterfall. That one speaks for itself.
Some of the scenes where the cardinal visits the missions are absolutely captivating - the choir singing against the backdrop of virgin rainforest is unusual and breathtaking. At the same time it's somewhat disturbing that these tribesmen have been so far contorted from their natural way of life in such a short time. But then the movie is full of contrasts like this - love/hate, freedom/captivity, right/wrong, revenge/forgiveness, humanity/politics, violence/passivity.
The latter is played out beautifully in the scene where the mission is under attack and while Gabriel and his followers forsake violence in place of worship, Rodrigo and his band of men bravely attempt to thwart the imminent invasion.
One particular shot stood out for me - where Rodrigo just killed his brother. I'm not entirely sure how it's done but something to do with focusing on the main character and making the background loom up around him. It worked so well, evoking the terrible realisation of what he'd just done.
The film reminds me of Malick's Thin Red Line in as much as it doesn't just tell a historical story, but is also a fundamental examination of humanity, love and compassion in a brutal world. This duality works so well in these movies for me. What better purpose for a film than to make people think about this? It can be life changing to the viewer in a positive way if watched and understood with respect.
If it weren't for the historical inaccuracies I'd easily give this a 10. It's a brilliantly made and acted film that can be appreciated time and time again.