The ending left me puzzled for a few minutes before I worked it out and this is my take on it:
The Visitor priest realises two things about the Father Abbot:
The first is that Fr Abbot has completely lost his faith and did so many years ago. When asked by the Visitor why he stayed he replied he sees himself as Foreman, a Manager, its the l…
The ending left me puzzled for a few minutes before I worked it out and this is my take on it:
The Visitor priest realises two things about the Father Abbot:
The first is that Fr Abbot has completely lost his faith and did so many years ago. When asked by the Visitor why he stayed he replied he sees himself as Foreman, a Manager, its the life he leads. He likes to keep it all going for the other monks who he says are like children.
The second thing he discovers about Fr Abbot is that he ruthlessly applies the vow of obedience that the other monks have taken to him as Abbot and he does it with effect.
Hence, the Visitor knows that when he is gone, the Abbot will ruthlessly apply the ruling from Rome that seeks to ban the Latin Mass and will stop all such Masses being said on the mainland to keep the Buddhists happy. That is why he tears up the resignation letter that the Abbot has written to the Superior General wherein he asks for a transfer to another monastery as a mere monk, not an Abbot. The Abbot asks the Visitor just before his departure what he should do with the television and news people. The Visitor tells him to send all inquiries to himself in Rome. The Visitor is confident that the Abbot will do Rome's dirty work and leaves secure in that knowledge.
This is confirmed in the final scene which shows Fr Abbott can't even complete the Our Father. The Catholic faith now means nothing to him and so he will enforce Rome's command in a fake obedience to an unjust command.
I think the film makers in those early days misunderstood the drive and yearning that would keep the Traditional Mass going. A more suitable end to the movie would have seen the monks deposing the Abbott and rejecting him from the island. They would continue saying the Traditional Mass and keep serving the faithful on the mainland. Given the fame it was already attracting it would then grow as a movement ever stronger as it was doing already. That could have been the basis for a second movie.
The scary thing is that the movie prophetically foresaw that Rome would one day attempt to ruthlessly suppress the Traditional Mass.
I agree 100% with your very perceptive and well-expressed analysis. There is really nothing to add. I think the structure of power and obedience is the only thing that's left when the soul or spirit of faith departs. It's like bones without flesh. I see this film as an (unintentional) "cautionary tale": do not fail to notice the faithlessness under your nose, and do not keep giving obedience to those who become disobedient to God.
The ending left me puzzled for a few minutes before I worked it out and this is my take on it:
The Visitor priest realises two things about the Father Abbot:
The first is that Fr Abbot has completely lost his faith and did so many years ago. When asked by the Visitor why he stayed he replied he sees himself as Foreman, a Manager, its the life he leads. He likes to keep it all going for the other monks who he says are like children.
The second thing he discovers about Fr Abbot is that he ruthlessly applies the vow of obedience that the other monks have taken to him as Abbot and he does it with effect.
Hence, the Visitor knows that when he is gone, the Abbot will ruthlessly apply the ruling from Rome that seeks to ban the Latin Mass and will stop all such Masses being said on the mainland to keep the Buddhists happy. That is why he tears up the resignation letter that the Abbot has written to the Superior General wherein he asks for a transfer to another monastery as a mere monk, not an Abbot. The Abbot asks the Visitor just before his departure what he should do with the television and news people. The Visitor tells him to send all inquiries to himself in Rome. The Visitor is confident that the Abbot will do Rome's dirty work and leaves secure in that knowledge.
This is confirmed in the final scene which shows Fr Abbott can't even complete the Our Father. The Catholic faith now means nothing to him and so he will enforce Rome's command in a fake obedience to an unjust command.
I think the film makers in those early days misunderstood the drive and yearning that would keep the Traditional Mass going. A more suitable end to the movie would have seen the monks deposing the Abbott and rejecting him from the island. They would continue saying the Traditional Mass and keep serving the faithful on the mainland. Given the fame it was already attracting it would then grow as a movement ever stronger as it was doing already. That could have been the basis for a second movie.
The scary thing is that the movie prophetically foresaw that Rome would one day attempt to ruthlessly suppress the Traditional Mass.
I agree 100% with your very perceptive and well-expressed analysis. There is really nothing to add. I think the structure of power and obedience is the only thing that's left when the soul or spirit of faith departs. It's like bones without flesh. I see this film as an (unintentional) "cautionary tale": do not fail to notice the faithlessness under your nose, and do not keep giving obedience to those who become disobedient to God.