That doesn’t strike me as a particularly fair characterization. Surely Rodrigues, at least based on what happens in the novel, and on the experiences of most believers I know, would see this as being more akin to being forced to hurt and humiliate a spouse to whom he has committed his life, especially as it is through that relationship that he derives his understanding of what is “benevolent”? And surely the question of sacrificing – or rejecting – what one holds dear for the sake of others is still a question worth pondering, and one with which films continue to struggle?

“…the film feels as if it hinges on an issue of relevance to only those of the most pious sort…”

If one of the duties of modern cinema has to do with offering representations of different people, of people we might not encounter regularly and therefore don’t always understand with anything resembling acuity, surely it’s not a bad thing to portray the dilemmas of the most pious, even if it’s not a dilemma we ourselves experience? As “non-believers, meanwhile, may wonder what all the fuss is about,” that is probably a reason to have the film made, so that they may come to understand.

And why is it “arrogant” to believe that one should share what one believes to be the truth? Rodrigues, again, as characterised in the novel, certainly has unhealthy pride in his ability to give glory to God, but in the end of the novel, he is humbled, sees himself as inferior, and still has that conviction. That claim doesn’t scan.