Customer Reviews

Black Robe

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

"Black Robe" is based on a novel of the same title written by the late Brian Moore, who also wrote the film's screenplay. Moore's idea for the plot of his novel and most of the details he used within it came from the Jesuit Relations- a 17th century chronicle of the day to day events of the North American mission of the Society of Jesus. While the Relations' main purpose was to describe successful conversions, miracles, and battles fought against Satan, they are also one of the most important historical records of the lives and customs of many American Indian tribes.

The Jesuits presented a wonderful depiction of the people they were trying to convert. Some of the stories are very funny- one Algonquin hired by the Jesuits to be a translator was asked by his employers for the Algonquin words relating to spiritual and religious topics. The translator instructed them and the Jesuits rushed off to preach to the Algonquins. It was only upon being greeted by the peeling laughter of their would-be converts did the Jesuits realize that their translator had instead instructed them on Algonquin foul language.

However, the Relations also depict a very grim picture of life in the mid 17th century wilderness. Contrary to what another reviewer has written here- adoption was not guaranteed for anyone! Yes, mass adoption later become something the Iroquois practiced, but only after their numbers had been so badly dwindled in their wars of conquest in the 1650-1670's. Women, children, and the elderly could be hideously tortured to death as well as men. The movie, in fact, was edited to avoid showing the Indians practicing ritual cannibalism on that slain boy- a custom that was common among the tribes of Eastern woodlands. To devour an enemy's flesh was to devour his power. The heart of a particularly brave enemy (such as the Jesuit martyr St. Jean Brebeuf) would be eaten by chiefs.

Also in the 17th century, the gauntlet was not the only ordeal for a male prisoner captured alive. If captured a male prisoner would usually have his hands mutiliated in some way- finger joints cut off by either cutting (sometimes with sea shells as shown in the movie) or by biting. Why? A warrior without the use of his fingers was useless- could not pull a bowstring or grasp a knife.

One could say that the Jesuits were biased in their desire to portray the Indians as savages and thus justify their conversion. However, the Relations are reknowned for their candor and there are too many other sources that describe women and children captives being summarily executed for little or no reason. (The famed voyageur and explorer Pierre Esprit Radisson in his autobiography "Voyages" saw with his own eyes- children and women being tortured to death by the Mohawks.)

The Algonquin bands of hunter/gatherers, with whom the French Jesuits made first contact, lived a mean existence by any standard. Theirs was a society that was utterly "christian" in that they shared everything, but also one that could not tolerate those who fell sick or lame. These unfortunates would just be abandoned. Life was hard enough for those healthy and fit. Also, living in a birchbark tent with almost no ventilation for smoke, zero privacy, a bunch of dogs, and lots of unwashed bodies was probably a much, much nastier place than what was shown in the film. (The meanness of these living conditions must have have been very tough on many members of the Society of Jesus because a lot of them came from families of great wealth and privilege.)

"Black Robe," the novel and the film, were meant to be an antidote to the current romancization of the AmerIndians. In recent decades we've taken one myth about the AmerIndians, that of the blood thirsty savage, and replaced it with another, the new age Eagle scout with a bent for ecology. "Black Robe" attempts to hit a middle ground- showing these people as humans who lived in a culture that was governed by different values than our own. They are shown as intelligent and brave, but also as greedy and very cruel. That Europe was awash with blood at the same time is beside the point. Brian Moore was trying to show that North America was never a Garden of Eden- people here still treated people different from themselves very cruelly.

As mentioned above, Moore actually held back in the screenplay certain elements of Algonquin life that could be found in his novel. Their everyday language was peppered by words that we would call vulgar- but to them it them it was just talking. They allowed promiscuity among unmarried young men and women- a fact that was found very enticing by French laymen, but scandalized the priests.

I don't think this movie is some sort of "propaganda" to perpetuate negative stereotypes on AmerIndians. I do think it is an honest attempt to show that these people were human beings whose lives were governed by the harshness of their surroundings. For an Algonquin band of hunter/gatherers living along the St. Lawrence, life truly was a survival of the fittest. Brian Moore simply held up a picture of the cruelty and difficulty of this existence, if some neo-romanticists don't like what they see then so be it.

If Bruce Beresford's `Driving Miss Daisy' suffered from a softened, Hollywooden view of history and racial conflicts,
the bleak, beautiful sometimes horrific, always uncompromising `Black Robe' is its correlative opposite.

Set in the 17th century, both the Native Canadian people, and the French Jesuits who come to bring then religion
(when they already have their own, thank you very much) are presented as deeply flawed, cold and cruel at times,
blind to the complexities of each other's humanity.

Yet both are also touched by moments of kindness and understanding that lead to the sense that this story of one
Jesuit's torturous trip with a band of native guides is not without it's growth for all involved.

Most critics were mixed on this, and I understand their objections, though I don't share them. The film is distant
emotionally, and we never really get inside any of the characters, even the titular priest, called `Black Robe' by the
native people. The film is more illustrative than dramatic. Again, the exact opposite strengths and weaknesses of
Beresord's `Driving Miss Daisy', which was full of wonderfully moving characters, but lacking honest context.

But I found the historical context here, and intellectual insight, the suspense inherent to the story, along with the
physical beauty of the locations and the sharply honest insight into the Native universe enough to be always engrossed
and interested, and ultimately quite moved.

Quite possibly the best dramatic film on the subject of Native Americans. Bruce Beresford offers an unapologetic view of Algonquian and Iroqouis Indians in the early era of European colonization. Unfettered by any politically correct agenda, Beresford delivers a portrayal that is poignant, terrifying, and moving. Georges Delerue's hauntingly beautiful score is masterful. Lothaire Bluteau, Aden Young, and August Schnellenberg deliver outstanding performances. An absolute must-see.

Quebec 1634. Jesuit missionaries from France venture bravely into New France (Canada) to convert the Indian savages from their paganism. That's the historical background of "Black Robe", a movie based on the book by Brian Moore. It portrays the story of a fictional black robe Father Laforgue, who undertakes an arduous 1500 mile journey at the onset of a harsh winter. Guided by Algonquin Indians, threatened by Iroquois Indians, his destination is the Huron Indians. He is threatened by the elements, but most of all by the Indian paganism which construes him as a demon. The plot, however, is neither memorable nor outstanding - it is merely the background for a careful contemplation of characterization and complex questions about culture clash.

Laforgue's companion is the young Frenchman Daniel, and it is largely through his eyes that we see the clash between cultures and religions. The contrast between the faiths and cultures of the Western Christians and the native Indians is presented from the outset, with alternating shots portraying the "chiefs" of both sides preparing for a meeting. Both cultures fail to understand each other, and believe the other to be stupid and demon-possessed. At first, with Daniel, we are led to believe that the Jesuit's missionary endeavours are little else than misplaced colonialism and cultural arrogance. Laforgue is presented as rather arrogant and ignorant, his vocabulary of "poor barbarians" and "savage people", and his patronizing showing off of Western skills in reading and music and technology (an alarm clock) appears to confirm this impression. When Daniel suggests that the Indians are essentially Christian in their love for each other, and that with regard to their view of the afterlife the Indian beliefs are no harder to believe "than a Paradise where we all sit on clouds and look at God", Daniel seems to be a symbol of modern enlightened man who has realized it was wrong for Western man to force his beliefs on the natives. Daniel's romance with the Indian chief's daughter seems to be an unnecessary artificial intrusion of an unbelievable story of love at first sight, and appeared to be a concession to Hollywood's need to include sappy romance and sex. At this point I seriously wondered whether the movie was an apology for white supremacy and colonialism, a defence of multiculturalism, and another example of historical revisionism which romanticizes the Indians as saints and condemns the white imperialists as unforgivable criminals.

But as the movie progresses, it becomes clear that although Jesuit priests such as Laforgue were sometimes guilty of peddling colonialism rather than the gospel, their simple assessment is not simplistic but accurate: the Indians truly are savages who live in darkness. Daniel's multiculturalism is naïve, and Laforgue's view that it is a clash between two religions turns out to be correct, for he perceives the Indian religions to be work of the devil, while they in turn perceive him to be a demon. In the end, Laforgue is proven to be right, for the Indians show themselves to be true savages, engaged in brutal animalistic behaviour. Their hostility is not just due to the priest's rejection of their beliefs, but is rooted in their very nature. These scenes are not pleasant to see: the movie portrays their primitive behaviour with all its brutality and passion - unrestrained sex, torture, murder. The gruesome blood and gore is not for the faint-hearted and will at times make you want to close your eyes. But these fruits confirm that the apparently simplistic assessment of the black robe is right: "The savages are living in darkness. We must convert them." They need the light of the gospel and renewal of the Holy Spirit, to become like Laforgue, who despite his misplaced colonialism, is sincere in his love to reach out to the lost. The ending, however, is ambiguous on this point, with Laforgue apparently being converted to some of the Indian superstitions as he makes his final trek to the village of the Hurons. The tragic conclusion about the annihilation of the Hurons after they were converted is ambiguous in attributing blame for this horror: is it with the Christians who converted them, or is it with the darkness of their own kind who remained unconverted? Would the indigenous Indians have been better off if they had been untouched by European imperialism? If the movie has weaknesses aside from his dark portrait of brutality, it would be the ambiguity of the ending, for surely although the Jesuit mission work was at times misguided by colonialism, its identification of the kingdom of darkness was never truer.

Although it features wonderful cinematography of breathtaking Canadian scenery, this is not a pleasant movie to watch. Unlike most modern movies, the portrayal of violence and explicit sex is never entertaining, but always brutal, dark and representative of primitive barbarianism. On that point I personally found it rather too graphic and disturbing, and even the depth of the themes doesn't justify being exposed to this kind of darkness. But in the process it raises very complex and thought-provoking questions. The action is not fast and furious, but arranged at just the right places to stimulate contemplation. This is not typical Hollywood, because it gives the subject matter the realism, contemplation and seriousness it deserves. The blood and gore is all the more horrifying, because it is accurate. While this distinguishes it from the usual Hollywood cotton-candy, "Black Robe" is not surprisingly less popular because it requires an audience that can think. The movie is highly introspective, as Laforgue deals with his own struggles against lust and faith. But above all, it raises important questions about culture clash. While it portrays the truth about Jesuit missionaries being somewhat misplaced in their colonialism, it also portrays the truth about the barbarians that they sought to convert. Despite the weaknesses of the missionaries, in the end it becomes clear that as ambassadors of the kingdom of light, the black robes were truly symbols of light in battling against the powers of darkness. This is not an enjoyable movie to see, but it its treatment of colonialism and religion it raises profound questions - even if it doesn't answer them all.

Oh give it up, last critic. This was not Gone With The Wind or The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, examining all aspects of their subject.
The movie simply tells the history of white, Catholic, French civilisation coming into contact with the native population. The Jesuit priests did their job as they knew how: they brought their God to those people.
In the historical truth, as you demand, some of the native population accepted the beauty of the Catholic faith.
Also in historical truth, other tribes did not accept their teachings: look up the Jesuit priests who were mutilated and enslaved. See the ones who were tortured and killed.
In the beautiful film called "The Mission," the same truth was told, but under different circumstances and music, and with far different results.
You are supposed to describe the film, not your ideology or religious bias. Both this film and The Mission are beautiful movies, telling a real story, and providing a nourishing tale of human nature. Grow from it, don't deny its beauty and truth.

The movie was immersed in historical accuracy, from the clothing, cultures, and attitudes. The "Black Robes" were trying to convert the 'savages' to find paradise to which they did not seek, they had their own religion and their own paradise to look forward to, where their loved ones would be. The black robes were also their to help the French colonize the area, making it safe for others to come over if they all had found the same religion, they could be safe. The Movie showed how the Indians tried to syncronize catholicism with their own culture and how the Black Robe had gained an insight to their understanding and had compassion for them, with a love for them without trying to exploit them as ignorant savages. The movie takes you from Champlain to Huron and the trial and tribulations of the 17th Century. An easy movie to watch and gain valuable insight without too much westernization as possible.

This film is so unHollywood that it is refreshing and moving. It is superbly acted and directed. The sets and costumes are so authentic that the viewer is drawn into the characters' lives immediately. This film is a winner. If you want authentic Indians and real struggles at the time, this is the film. Its documentary-like quality adds even more realism. I loved this film.

The Black Robe offers entertaining insights into the cultures of Native Americans in the face of approaching settlers/pioneers. The focus is on a Jesuit Priest who has left France and then the safety of a French Fort to venture into the wilderness in hopes of connecting with an Indian tribe. The movie conveys the commitment and utter sacrifice the priest makes to reach these people.

I think this movie offers an accurate glimpse of how the Indian tribes lived and clashed with each other and with the elements.

The interaction between the humans and each person's inner questioning and conflicts reveals much about faith, acceptance and life in general.

The scenery of the movie is amazing and alone would make the movie worth watching.

The story has sparked my interest in the events, so that I want to look into reading the book. It looks like the author and director were sincere in their efforts to tell a historically accurate story.

Other reviews on this site already describe this movie in some detail, so I won't rehash its content. Instead, I'd like to reinforce the enthusiasm of other reviewers by simply saying that THIS IS THE BEST MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN! If you have an interest in history and culture, can approach these subjects with an open mind, and can withstand a dizzying shock to your worldview, no other movie can transport you like this one!

When I first saw this movie at the theatres more than 10 years ago, it made a profound impact on me. As I now have it my DVD library, I can watch this movie over and over again. Portraying a Jesuit priest's 1500 mile journey through the Canadian wilderness in the early 1600's, it is a story of God and demons, human relations, and our view of other cultures. It gives a wonderful insight into the minds of the Jesuits, how Europe came to conquer the "savages" and "save them" from their false believes. The filming is wonderful, the landscape and scenery stunning, and the performances very good. The movie does not wear silk gloves - the harsh reality of the wilderness is showed in its true and brutal form. Here, only the strong survive, and you cannot be sure that God will save you. One of the best movies of the 90's, and a great preference over Dances with wolves.