Review of Silence (2016) by Axet — 10 Jan 2017

I was disappointed when I first saw the trailer for this at the movies because I thought Scorsese's next picture was going to be the eagerly awaited "The Irishman" with Pacino and DeNiro. Marty is a great legendary director of course and I like any film critic, cinephile, or moviemaker am a fan. Though I was never such a big fan of his earlier efforts which though I always respected felt were widely over-praised in some cases. Yet I found "The Departed", "Shutter Island", and "The Wolf of Wall Street" not only to be excellent (all 10 ratings) but each ranked as my best movie of the respective year. That is quite a roll not to mention how late in an artist's esteemed career! Rarely do they get better with age.

This film doesn't continue that run in my opinion. It's well crafted of course, it's quality, it's thought provoking, and it's a good historical story set in an exotic locale with fine actors. It's also long, slow and boring. Had it been as good all the way through as the intensity that kicks in at about the two hour mark then once again it would have enabled claim as yet another masterpiece from Marty.

Interestingly and disturbingly the film depicts a sort of analogous brutality and unyielding intolerance for religious freedom that the Japanese were guilty of in the 17th Century and the current ISIS with its similarly horrific barbaric torture and slaying of human beings is now. That evil primitive derangement is hard to watch but as it plays here is a fine example of the power of movies and art in general to bring clarity to an audience regarding history and how it pertains to current events. You know, if we don't learn from history we are condemned to repeat it.

Technical-aesthetic note: There was an annoying change in the sub-title style during the feature. They begin more traditionally with a subtle drop shadow (in the old days there was never any drop shadow which was always a stupid problem of readability), but then later the drop shadow is very pronounced and downright distracting. Amateur looking and anything but elegant! Obviously this was because they thought the brighter scenes with sub-titles later in the film needed this modified treatment. They don't! Consistency always matters! It's surprising this got by Marty.

And on another similar but broader note regarding all titles now in movies on the big screen, because it's all digital projection there has been this terrible digital aliasing ("jaggies") of text that is so unacceptable on the big screen, so wrong, so not film! It is unbelievable this has been accepted as long as it has been going now! I first noticed it in 2002 actually and was appalled! Jagged digital text reeks of low grade TV/video. Well it doesn't have to be this way. I know how to remedy it. Simply add a slight Gaussian blur and text will appear more filmic even when projected digitally. The trade off is softer focus on the text but worth it! It's the over-crispness of digital text that is so glaring when you can see the staircase edges. I mean come on! Or upgrade cinema projectors to 8K, which they probably should be if even television is going 4K.