El último misionero

I'm a history student of second grade of a french canadian university. So, in a history point of view, I can assure you that this movie is simply amazing. The story is about a jesuite priest who wants to bring catholic faith to the Indians of the french colony Nouvelle-France (New France, the future Quebec of Canada) in the seventeen century. In fact, there was a lot of jesuite doing that by that time. The priest and his young translator ask the Algonquins natives to guide them to the Hurons natives. That is also exactly correct! But in their quest,they had some problems with the Iroquois natives. And that is exactly right! At the end, the priest reach the Hurons. The chief of the tribe tells that if they accept the god of the priest, they will become weak and their ennemies will kill them. And that's what's gonna happen! In fact, the Hurons were the first Indians of New France to accept catholic religion. I saw the movie with the french dubbing. The Indians of that time didn't knew how to prononce R. So, in the movie, they say : obe noie, instead of Robe Noire (Black Robe). I don't know if they said black obe in the English version. In one scence, the priest tells the Indian sorcerer that he is reading a breviaire (book of prayers). And the sorcerer said: beviaire, witout the R. The way the natives are dressed and wears their hairs is also very exact in an historical view. This is not only a great movie, but an amazing reconstitution. Natives actors are great, with August Schlleberg, the always good Tantoo Cardinal and the charming young Sandrine Holt. Lothaire Blutheau is one of the best french canadian actor (see him in Jesus of Montreal). This is absolutely a superb piece of work ! And some kind of perfect history book.

Wow, what a fascinating movie and different kind of film. One really can't get the full impact of this through a review. Anyone who has seen this, I think would agree with me on that.

If I had skipped over the credits and someone had told me Terrence Malick (Days Of Heaven, The New World, The Thin Red Line and Badlands) and directed this film, I would have believed it. Visually, this is his kind of film. I wonder if this movie inspired parts of his latest effort, The New World? There are a number of similarities. Black Robe has the same kind of beautiful and haunting images Malick's films possess but the director in this case is Bruce Bereford, the man who directed Driving Miss Daisy a couple of years before doing this film. DMD also is beautifully-filmed.

Black Robe is not just a piece of art. As great as it is visually, this is a powerful story of a well-intentioned Jesuit priest in the early 17th century who travels to "New France" (upstate New York/French Canadian territory) attempting to convert a few area tribes to Christianity. To unbelievers, that seems pushy but Biblically-speaking it is not. Jesus commanded his followers to do just that (Matt. 28:18-20) , so the priest is only doing what missionaries have done for centuries. He also is a good man, stays strong in his beliefs regardless of his own well-being and is a gentle soul. Kudos to the filmmakers for being fair to him.

The Algonquins and the Hurons are also shown with their beliefs, too, and their cultures which obviously were in contrast to the white European-based priest. All sides are shown fairly in this movie, with both positive and negative traits of all.

I was shocked at a few scenes in here, not expecting them as the film has such a gentle flow to it before anything dramatic happens. We see a few sexual scenes and then some brutal violence. The Hurons, particularly, do not want any invasion of their privacy and culture and are openly hostile to the priest and the Algonquins. The story transforms from a quiet Malick-type "New World" poetic piece to a violent, suspenseful film and the question is, will the "good guys" make it out alive?

The actors in here, perhaps, are not names most people outside Canada are familiar with, including me, but Lothaire Blueteau as Father Laforgue, Aden Young as his assistant "Daniel" and Sandrine Holt as Daniel's Algonguin lover "Anuuka" are all very, very good. All the characters in this film are very credible people, steadfast in their own beliefs and they come across as realistic people. Most films have unreal people with unrealistic dialog....but not in this movie.

Another big plus was the soundtrack: a lush, haunting score throughout.

Without spoiling the ending, or adding political/theological agendas my own, let me just add that if you enjoy a beautiful-looking movie which also has a thoughtful, haunting story with honest characters, you should check this out. Highly recommended.

I don't know why it took me so long to see this film, as I had heard of it many times. I think that I was put off by films like "The Last of the Mohicans", which I found dreary. There is no comparison with the oft-mentioned "Dances With Wolves". This film is an outstanding and riveting piece of work. Why others seem to have found it slow or heavy going is beyond me. When I reached the end (far too quickly) I just wanted to sit through it over again.

Having lived in Canada for some years, I could only marvel at the early colonizers who explored and settled Canada, a vast wilderness with a long, hard, bitterly cold winter - and I never went further north than Toronto! Whether or not one agrees with their reasons for going, whether it be trading, grabbing land or the salvation of the native population, the thought of being completely alone in the bitterly cold wilderness does command respect for their courage.

The film is set in 1634, a time when France was a cesspool of venality, corruption, intrigue and religious fanaticism, and when the pilgrims had been in Massachusetts for less than 10 years. The French Revolution was 150 years away. Life was hard for the settlers, who were on their own, without the survival kills evolved over thousands of years by the native population, whose life seemed brutally harsh but was a necessary adaptation to the land in which they lived. Early in the film the Algonquin chief tells his daughter than she cannot marry the Frenchman who she had fallen for, as he was a fool and did not know how to provide for her. That was the key. If a man could not provide for his family he could not take a wife. Anyone who became sick or injured must be left behind to take their chances, otherwise they would endanger the survival of the group. I think that this film makes that very clear. As the little group makes their way through Iriquois territory they are attacked by the Iriquois who plan to torture and sacrifice them, not apparently out of malice or wanton cruelty, but to please their God. (We had already seen the Jesuit priest flagellating himself for having impure thoughts).

The films deals at length with the misunderstanding of each other's religion and way of life, which causes us to question our own - just why do we do that? Why do the Iriquois fight the Algonquin, and the Huron when there is land to spare for all of them? Why did the French and English use the native people to fight their wars? The Indians cannot understand the Jesuit concept of paradise, sitting on a cloud all day with no tobacco, and no sex, but if accepting baptism helps them recover from a sickness , they will compromise. One gets the feeling that if the Jesuits moved out and another sect moved in, the Indians would convert to the new faith if it suited their purpose.

The scenery, as the party begins its long trek to the Huron mission is breathtaking. What they find when they reach the mission is not surprising, but once again, one has a feeling of admiration for the stoicism and faith of the Jesuit priests who knew that they were going to the ends of the earth and would likely never see their families again. To someone who buys all their food at the supermarket, or from the take out window, the thought of the self sufficiency of these people who live entirely on what they can catch or forage is quite mind boggling. Already the Indians are becoming dependent on the white man's goods. The trading post will not be long in coming. The Husdons Bay Company was set up by Royal charter about 30 years later.

I would recommend this film to anyone who likes a beautiful, thought provoking film.

Released in 1991 and based on Brian Moore's researched novel, "Black Robe" relays the story of a young Jesuit priest in 1634 visiting the French settlement that later became Quebec City. Father LaForgue is assigned to a distant Huron mission accompanied by a young quasi-believing assistant and a family of Algonquin Indians. The group faces challenges beyond the harsh realities of the river trek itself, including an attack by hostile Iroquois. Of course the Indians question the "strange ways" of the priest and his dark attire and wonder whether he is a demon. Instead of addressing him as "Father" they simply call him "Black Robe."

I've viewed "Black Robe" three times now and it never fails to capture my attention from beginning to end (the film runs 101 minutes), which is why I don't get the criticism that it's somehow unabsorbing. What strikes me most is the raw realism. Viewing "Black Robe" is the next best thing to going back in time and viewing the events firsthand.

Other highlights include: Lothaire Bluteau's solid performance as the missionary priest; LaForgue's assistant, well played by Aden Young, and his developing love for the daughter of the Algonquin leader, played by the beautiful Sandrine Holt; the Algonquins themselves, particular the patriarch; the freaky midget shaman of a band of Montagnais natives; the harrowing events at an Iroquois fort; the subtext on the truth or falsity of spiritual beliefs, both of the Jesuits and the Indians; and the spectacular cinematography of the Quebec wilderness (mostly the Saint Lawrence River, filmed on location). The film successfully shows the desolate, untamed nature of the NE before the mass encroachment of Europeans.

Some may wonder: How does it compare to "Last of the Mohicans" or "Dances with Wolves," two contemporary films also featuring realistic portrayals of AmerIndians? Of the two, "Black Robe" is closer to "Last of the Mohicans" since the story takes place in the East and there aren't any cowboys & Indians, although the story takes place well over a century earlier. The film differs from both in that there aren't really any Hollywood contrivances, including conventional movie plotting. As great and generally believable as those other films are, "Black Robe" shows the harsher, bleaker reality, which some may translate as boring.

However, as raw and realistic as "Black Robe" is, it could've been more so, considering that it fails to show one disturbing reality of Eastern AmerIndian culture, as detailed in Moore's book (pointed out by another reviewer): The film avoids depicting the native practice of ritual cannibalism on a dead infant, a custom that was common among the tribes of the Eastern woodlands. To consume an enemy's flesh was to absorb his power. The heart of an especially courageous foe (such as Jesuit martyr St. Jean Brebeuf) would be eaten by tribal leaders. But, don't get me wrong here, I'm kind of glad the movie left this aspect out.

"Black Robe" has the same vibe as 2007's "Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan," so if you appreciate that style of raw-realism you'll likely value "Black Robe." Needless to say, if you have ADHD or require constant explosions to maintain your attention, stay far away.

GRADE: A

This film is brilliant, because it defies conventional stereotypes of European settlers and American Indians. This movie strives and succeeds in its portrayal of Indians and whites as human beings, rather than as villains or saints. Those who feel this movie would show the Indians as noble savages will be gravelly disappointed. The Indians in "Black Robe" can be cruel, and have sexual mores that would disgust the more prudish viewers. The affect of the Jesuit missionaries among the Indians of Quebec is not romanticized or glossed over, nor are the Jesuits shown as evil white devils. All humans in this movie have their flaws and weaknesses and all act "morally" according to their own cultures' expectations. Beresford has crafted a marvelous film that ought to be required viewing in college history courses across the country.

The cinematography is beautiful, whether we are watching the gilded altars of the cathedrals of Renaissance France, the iridescent glow of a fire at an Indian village, the cramped quarters of an Indian longhouse, or the awesome and heavenly magnificence of the Canadian woodlands and what appears to be the St. Lawrance River. This movie does feature explicit sexual acts and gruesome violence, so I would not recommend this movie at all for very young children. I think most teenagers can handle this film. I suppose this film is very hard to find at your local video rental store, but do yourselves a favor and find it. Your efforts will be amply rewarded.