Violence, Movies & Redemption

The new BP article by Mark Kelly, on Hollywood and the new movie Kingdom of Heaven, isn't very interesting, but the opening paragraph is funny to me...

Evangelicals have tried for years to convince Hollywood it is more profitable to make decent movies for normal people than to grind out the gratuitous sex and violence that only sucks society deeper into the sewer. Mel Gibson finally got their attention when his “Passion of the Christ” grossed almost $612 million worldwide -- more than 20 times his original investment.

Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees the irony here.  Roger Ebert wrote in his review of "Passion"...

The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen.

I think this is really, truly funny.  But I also think it's sad and revealing.

We say things about movies like "Violence just leads to violence, so let's keep it clean."  But how can we say that real violence doesn't tell a story far better?  If it did for Passion then why not for Kingdom of Heaven or Gladiator or Braveheart? 

The Bible tells bloody stories.  It is not a PG-13 book.  And if we are going to get our children and teenagers and everyone else to understand the Story of redemption, they are going to have to understand violence because the death of Jesus was incredibly violent.

Is it reasonable for Christians to encourage violence in movies since it reminds us of redemption?

Comments

[Chris W]

Encourage violence in movies? Maybe not. But I've always been opposed to the idea that the movie industry or the music industry being restricted in terms of the material they present. This is a little stickier when it comes to the music industry, but movies have a rating system - a tool for parents to use to guide their children (or themselves) to the appropriate films. Between the ratings system, good parenting skills, and basic common sense, we should all be able to avoid being exposed to the wrong images.

[Steve McCoy]

Chris, I agree.

[Roger N Overton]

I think the important distinction is that in many movies violence is thrown in simply for the glorification of violence. With movies like the Passion of Christ, the violence shown is meant to be an accurate representation of what happened (an in fact still toned down a bit). I think we should encourage violence in film when it is necessary to portray an event or plot point. We should discourage it when the violence is merely an end to itself.

[Matt]

Flannery O'Connor agrees with you, Steve, and so do I. And just where do these SBC leaders get off thinking that every film maker has an obligation to make church-friendly films? Hogwash.

[Paul]

Dallas Willard made some interesting comments about "The Passion...." He suggested that it was a graphic reminder of the brutality of sin. And, then, as you point out, the Bible would hardly be rated PG-13 itself.

[Joe Thorn]

Scott Derrickson, a Christian film maker who directed "Hellraiser Inferno," said it well in an interview. He said,

I respect the fact that people are drawn to observe horrific images and situations, but I also think it’s important for an artist to typically make evil acts and violent images repulsive. To do otherwise can easily lead to a dynamic that's a bit pornographic, I think. I care deeply about good and evil, and "woe to those who call evil good, and good evil." I intend for my work to reinforce definitions of good and evil rather than confuse them. The exception to this rule of making violence and evil repulsive, of course, is when trying to illuminate the seductive power of evil. In that case, you want the audience to experience the pleasure of evil, but only so that they can then come to understand evil better. When I watch [Leni Riefenstahl’s Nazi propaganda documentary] Triumph of the Will (a true horror film!) I do not experience repulsion, but seduction. I really feel the allure of the power of a culture fully enamored with and empowered by evil ideas. That film helps me understand the power of a wicked community and why it can exist. I also think the seductive visual beauty of David Lynch's Blue Velvet services that film wonderfully. It's a film about the horror that often lies beneath beautiful surfaces. His film The Elephant Man is the opposite: it's about the beauty that can exist underneath horrific surfaces. I think that most often, though, the goal is to make violence repulsive, rather than entertaining or attractive.
[From The New Pentagruel]

Boo-Yah!

[Wes]

Yes, the Bible contains many instances of violence but it does a good job of explaining the morality of the actions in the situation. When God shows his wrath, either by his own hand or through the leaders of Israel, it is shown to be just and righteous. And alternatively when humans act on their own will and out of sinful vengeance, this too seems to be clearly sinful and in opposition to God's will.

I think the problem with a lot of violent movies is the lines of morality are blurred. Sometimes the filmmaker can influence the viewer to see murder, violence, etc. as acceptable when it shouldn't be accepted, and vice versa. So when we have young kids or even adults that don't understand God's character or know His Word, they are gradually led astray and their heart can be further hardened.

[Steve McCoy]

Wes, did you read what Joe quoted? It's pretty good.

[Wes]

Hmmm...I read it, but I guess I didn't really read it. Now I see the overlapping parts. Still my frame of mind was around the typical American R-rated movie. The Nazi propoganda was more extreme than what I had in mind so I didn't see the parallel initially.