I don't like to watch my own movies - I fall asleep in my own movies.
~ Robert De Niro

When most people hear that Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons are in a movie together, the first thing that springs to mind is that the story line should fall between Raging Bull and Die Hard with a Vengeance. Instead, we are given a serious historical drama about Jesuit priests in eighteenth century South America; the storyline behind Roland Joffe’s The Mission. While movie critics claimed it to be an amazing work of art, James Schoefield Saeger’s article, “The Mission and Historical Missions” does the opposite. First, he lets the reader know that Joffe's vision fails to be completely historically accurate. Second, he seems offended by the themes and character that Joffe chose to pursue. Some of Saeger’s complaints about Joffe’s direction and the movie itself include:

- Though historically the events did occur, Saeger finds fault with nearly every part of the movie

- The location was not exact

- The Guarani Indians were actually farmers who hunted

- Relatively few Jesuits were martyred by indigenous populations during the 1700’s

- Presents the reason for opposition as a moral one, rather than showing the economic ones that both the Guarani and Jesuits had
- Indians had a limited capacity as characters (no crap, who did the crowds come to see De Niro or the actors portraying the Indians)

- Shows that the savages were modernized by the pure, good intentioned whites

- The Indians were naked and the women showed their boobs

- Most Guarani rejected Christianity

- Jesuits hated infanticide

- Realities of life at the mission

- Guarani led resistance

- Jesuits surrendered to the church, they were not slaughtered



So let’s look at his arguments. With regards to filming a movie about a historical event, no matter what, any movie based on such a topic will not be accurate. Why is that? Simple, because we were not there and even if we were, humans memories mirror themselves and shade themselves in the best possible light. Our entire culture will shape our understandings, as well as, how we use them to shape others opinions. If Joffe had directed a movie showing little brown skinned farmers dealing with Jesuit priests, with no name actors, reflecting a derogatory image of Europeans, imposing themselves and their values on these poor little farmers, would anyone have gone to see it? No, it would have bored the hell out of everyone and would have never been made. Saeger fails to recognize that The Mission was the fiftieth top grossing movie of 1986, competing with such movies as;

Top Gun – which made $177 million and had Tom Cruise in it

Platoon – which made $138 million and had a fine looking Charlie Sheen in it

Aliens – which made $85.2million and had a fine looking Michael Biehn in it

Ferris Bueller’s Day off – pulled in $70.1 million

The Color of Money – made $52.3 million, also starred Tom Cruise (but I went to watch Paul Newman)

Stand By Me – which starred River Phoenix (my favorite actor of my youth) and made $52.3 million

Heartbreak Ridge – starring Clint Eastwood (and his clusterf*@#k’s) brought in $42.7 million

Even An American Tail, which was a cartoon about an immigrant mouse, made $47.5 million that year. What did The Mission gross? $17.5 million which was less then what it had cost to make. I would hate to think about what would have happened if the boobs had been covered up. If Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons had not been in it, would anyone have gone to see it at all? Though much of Saeger’s critique may be justified, would anyone outside of those studying the history of indigenous South American Indians have gone to see the film otherwise. No. Despite its “flaws” Joffe’s version did bring the story of the events during the time of and the events leading up to the Battle of Caaibate, to the attention of mainstream media, thus allowing those who chose to, an opportunity to learn of a historical event that they could further find out about. What is even more astonishing is that a major production company even produced it. Saeger could have also pointed out the movie also showed that the church and Christianity during that time period pursued another type of “Holy War”, one against itself and its very core of beliefs. This movie should be viewed as at least showing very anti-Christian rhetoric in a very political correct time during its production and release period. Instead, he treated the film as though it were made for the history channel rather than the general public.
Again, I feel that Saeger took a very hard stance towards Joffe's work and would say if Mr. Saeger thought that movie was bad, he would die if he had to watch Pearl Harbor (which was a horrible movie and had nothing to do with the tragedy that unfolded there)...