Silence

Because outside some dialogues and similar scenes I honestly don't see nothing identical between the two. What I saw is bad acting from the main american lead who evidently could not care less to learn some portuguese (why you talk in english if you're gonna be subbed anyway? Go straigh for portuguese), general boredom, scenes that are meant to be powerful and emotional yet they're not felt in any way like the martyrdom of the three christians from the first village and the death of Father Garrupe, cheesy scenes with prostitutes of whom the Japanese must have had some serious infatuation back in the day seeing how they were a constant presence in the movies of this era, bad acting again from the guy who portrays Father Ferreira, a lot of "Tell, don't show" that Scorsese intelligently avoided, and so on...also, the thematics could not be different since here there are no questions about the existance of god or not, it's not what the movie focuses on. The movie just wants to portray an historical event as it is, with no personal questions of faith inbetween, like Scorsese tried to do with his work. Honestly, even if I'm not a religious guy in any way, I suggest you to rewatch the excellent scorsese flick instead of watching this dreck. Avoid it, even if the snob Japanese cinema connoseurs say you otherwise.

Masahiro Shinoda's take on Shusaku Endo's most important novel is an artistically risky and bravely filtered effort. Ultimately, 1971's "Chinmoku" succeeds in being the definitive film adaptation of the source material.

On the other hand, Martin Scorsese's later adaptation, while visually stunning, can't hold a candle to "The Last Temptation of Christ"; his magnum opus when it comes to religious thematics. In the case of "Silence", Scorsese's approach is not indicative of a similar radical zeal compared to Shinoda's; an attitude that perhaps stems from a Catholic Christian's need to reconcile with his church after "The Last Temptation" caused a negative uproar among Christian fanatics. No one can blame him, as long as he decides to remain fairly faithful to the main core of the novel of a... Japanese Catholic. That said, the film comes across as much more one-sided and noticeably less provocative than Shinoda's.

For instance, the 2016 film makes an unnecessary effort to idealize the protagonist, whose character has much more moral gray areas as portrayed in the book. There's also a dedication to the numerous Jesuit martyrs in Japan when the end credits begin to fall.

On the contrary, in the impeccable Japanese production of 1971, the divine presence is never confirmed, while the cynical finale adds to the ambiguity of the film, also keeping the flame of interest alive on crucial themes, which are analyzed more adequately: The "western" motives of proselytizing missions (priests are reduced to blind soldiers of a culture war), the historical background and the circumstances that caused the Japanese authorities to prohibit Christianity and marked the opening of a bloody cycle of intolerance, and the dilemma of fulfilling a higher purpose at the cost of prolonging the torture of innocents.

A couple of people compare this earliest adaptation of Shusaku Endo's 1966 novel with Scorsese's, which is rather strange because Shinoda Masahiro is one of the most important directors of the Japanese New Wave, on a par with Nagisa Oshima and Shôhei Imamura - almost as influential for Japanese cinema as Scorsese himself has been. Oshima is popular in the West because his films emulate the Nouvelle Vague, and Imamura won the Golden Palm twice because of his universal approach to class struggle. Shinoda is more difficult to relate to because he relies on cultural metaphors which are difficult to decipher for foreigners.

"Silence" is not his best film if you know the novel, for which Endo was long expected to receive the Nobel Prize. The book describes the story of two missionaries arriving in Japan after the ban on Christianity matter-of-fact from the perspective of the priest Rodrigo, who undergoes a transformation from spiritual idealization to materialistic resignation. Shinoda faithfully adapts the dialogue-heavy plot and adds color symbols and a good deal of sadistic voyeurism, but this doesn't work well. There is too much contrast between intellectual discourse and violent imagery, although the idea might be that you cannot reconcile the two.

What makes "Silence" still more interesting than Scorsese's film is the perspective. Instead of foreigners observing their Japanese surroundings, it is the Japanese class system which observes the foreigner, and his ultimate capitulation derives from realizing that he can not be a subject, only an object of his faith.

This movie is not too bad but it's also not good. There are nice landscapes and at times a contemplative or a gripping feeling, but Scorsese's version captures the metaphysical anguish and the essence of the book better than this early seventies film on which the author of the book cooperated. Acting is also often rather bad I must say, especially from the American actors, and the ending is both not very realistic and also not in accordance with the ending of Endo's book.

All in all, if you are a fan of the book and of Scorsese's version of it, like I am, watching Chinmoku is an addition is not obligatory. Scorsese's movie is the definitive version.

Chinmoku is a typically early seventies movie in just about every way.

This is probably the most powerful movie I have ever seen. Two Portuguese missionaries come Japan just as the authorities are stamping out Christianity in the 1500's. They seek to minister to the local Christians who are sorely persecuted.

The movie asks whether Christianity can really ever grow or thrive in Japan.

Besides just the persecution, is the Christianity in Japan the same as in Europe, or has it become its own religion? It is also an examination of the struggles in one man's faith undergoing inquisition-like sufferings.

I have read the book and seen the play, but I would say that the movie had the most emotional impact.