The Film Journal...Passionate and informed film criticism from an auteurist perspective.

Introduction

This is the “Age of Hollywood” (Paglia, 1994, p. 12) and the ascendancy of moving image culture, and so it is not too surprising to find that popular films [1] have become “the lingua franca of the twentieth century. The Tenth Muse...[that] has driven the other nine right off Olympus - or off the peak, anyway” (Vidal, 1993, pp. 2-3). Not only has the spiritual baton frequently been passed from institutional religion to popular culture, but the proverbial children-of-the-media actively seek much of their spiritual expression through popular films (whether via the cinema, TV or the Internet). Unlike many of the older generation whose knowledge is rooted primarily in books (i.e., textual-centrism), the video generation do not automatically dismiss movies as unpalatably shallow, brain-deadening or philosophically anemic. Rather, they treat the cinema as an exciting wellspring of inspiration worthy of respect because of its meta-messages and its ability to reveal much about the spiritual state, moral trajectory and philosophical wrestling of its society and time. Indeed, popular films have become so ubiquitous, influential, and much loved that Todd A. Kappelman (2000) argued:

Because literature is no longer the dominant form of expression, scriptwriters, directors, and actors do more to shape the culture in which we live than do the giants of literature or philosophy. We may be at the point in the development of Western culture that the Great Books series needs to be supplemented by a Great Films series (pp. 119-120).

One can only agree with him wholeheartedly. After all, “Great movies are like incarnate sermons” (Godawa, 2002, p. 10), they are ubiquitous throughout Western culture, and as such, Christians should practice the same willingness as the Apostle Paul while preaching at Mars Hill (Acts 17). [2] Namely, “to move out, observe culture, and then engage people with the gospel by using what they’ve observed and already know” (Urbanski, 2004, p. 61). Indeed, one can profitably combine this Pauline willingness with the Nazarene teaching strategy of going to the people, speaking their language about their concerns to teach them our Christian desires. After all, the believing Christian is compelled to scrutinise “the signs of the times” (Matt 16:3), and there can be no greater sign of the times today that popular films!

Movies in a Postmodern Light

As such, it is becoming far less surprising to find mainstream books about the Bible containing sections devoted to popular films to demonstrate the cultural continuity of the Divine word through its oral, textual and now audiovisual forms (Keene, 2002; Miller & Huber, 2003). Their existence also reflects a profound sociocultural change towards an increasingly important sub-genre of both theology and film studies, namely, the interdisciplinary field of religion-and-film (aka cinematic theology, celluloid religion, theo-film, film-faith dialogue). In its Christian form, it is also mute testimony to Adele Reinhartz’s (2003b, p. 188) claim that: “The movies attest to the Bible’s role in shaping the ways in which we tell our stories, mold our heroes, understand our experience, imagine our future, and explain ourselves to ourselves.” If the various religion professions wish to remain relevant in this post-Millennial, postmodern and increasingly post-Christian period, it needs to proactively embrace the popular cinema as a valid and worthwhile pedagogic tool. As Frost and Hirsch (2003, p. 151) dramatically assessed the situation: “Let’s face it! The entertainment industry—in particular, film—has changed traditional education and communication in profound ways, and the church had better take notice.” Even if:

Believers may not accept the theology in motion pictures and religious institutions may not always appreciate the alternative sources of communication…the history and culture of Hollywood indicate that the collision of creeds and popular culture is unavoidable (Smith, 2001, p. 224).

In addition to being unavoidable and an important hidden curriculum deserving of further acknowledgement, it is also a profound agent of personal transformation. As Peter MacNicol confessed: “Films have not only delighted me, transported me, enchanted, terrified, and informed me; they have, in the best instances, shaped me. No priest or homily so calibrated my moral compass as did movies. No classroom lecture so humanized me as did Hollywood” (Malone & Pacatte, 2003, p. xi).

Since feature films can be culturally powerful, socially relevant and spiritually profound, they also warrant monitoring because of it. Especially if Christians adhere to the scriptural prescription to think about things that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous and praiseworthy (Phil. 4:8). Instead of automatically lamenting the “film-addicted generation” (Frost & Hirsch, 2003, p. 151) and claim (erroneously) that films are “inherently evil and detrimental to the Christian’s spiritual well-being” (Kappelman, 2000, p. 128), thus, requiring their censorship, banning or avoidance (Kozlovic, 2003e, 2003f), it is more prudent for the profession to proactively employ the popular cinema in the classroom, home and pulpit as a serious pedagogic aid. Not only is this response reflective of our increasingly post-print, media-mediated world that is also in tune with the cultural diets and entertainment proclivities of our youth, but it is also sound theology. As Guerric DeBona (2004, p. 49) argued: “The Word of God is indeed living and active—in ways that we might never have imagined possible: between the lines, inside the heads of a community of readers and rippling through our modern world” including the cinema. In fact, there are at least eight scripturally based justifications for studying popular films and assuaging personal anxieties (Kozlovic, 2003a).

To ban the cinema in an automatic fashion because it might deal with “inherently evil” subject matter is also an untenable position because it means that one would also have to ban the Good Book itself. Why? Because as Brian Godawa (2002, p. 180) argued: “Since the Bible itself explores human evil with great depth and much detail, we cannot say that movies that do so are, without exception, exploitative. If we do, we run the risk of accusing the original Author of our faith of being exploitative himself.” Therefore, cinematic moderation rather than cinematic abstinence or cinematic prohibition is the only viable option in today’s liberal-minded world.

Not only is it inherently more just, but it means engaging with film with an attitude of wisdom and discernment, especially when coupled with the biblical prescription of mentally renewing ones’ mind (Rom. 12:2) and done for the greater glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). Therefore, one needs to actively develop the critical ability to see God at work in all things, including popular films. Not only must overt examples of Christianity within the cinema be examined, such as the indelible biblical epics of Cecil B. DeMille—The Ten Commandments (silent), The King of Kings, Samson and Delilah and The Ten Commandments (sound), but religion’s subtextual disguises also need to be explicated vigorously, precisely because of their covert nature.

Sacred Subtexts: Disguised Religious Figurations

The popular cinema is full of biblical stories adapted from the Old Testament (e.g., David and Bathsheba) and the New Testament (e.g., The Passion of the Christ) plus their associated literature (Campbell & Pitts, 1981; Kinnard & Davis, 1992; Stern, Jefford & DeBona, 1999; Tatum, 1997; Walsh, 2003). Equally prolific, but less well know is the deliberate engineering of biblical characters like Jesus, Moses, Judas etc. as sacred subtexts (aka holy subtexts; divine infranarratives), that is, disguised religious figurations. These subtexts only become detectable once sensitised to them, and then they are almost impossible to ignore thereafter! This subtextual phenomenon has been described as “anonymous religiousness” (Gallagher, 1997, p. 151) or the pursuit of “overtly religious themes in a secular ‘wrapper’” (Ellis, 2001, p. 304).

They exist because storytelling narratives can have a dual nature, namely, an overt plot plus a covert storyline of varying complexity that is comparable to the metaphorical or symbolic within literature. As Bernard Dick (1998, p. 129) described this relationship: “the narrative and infranarrative (or text and subtext) are not two separate entities (there is, after all, only one film); think of them, rather, as two concentric circles, the infranarrative being within the narrative.” Sacred subtexts can therefore provide a more prolific means of disseminating Christian holy stories, symbols and characters within the secular media without generating viewer backlash from atheists, non-believers or the religiously wounded with unforgiving dispositions.

The religious saturation of the popular cinema is immense and it grows yearly, yet, there is a general lack of awareness of how religious themes permeate popular films, even among communities of religionists, lay believers and the media addicted public. Consequently, their utilisation as a legitimate extra-ecclesiastical resource within Religious Education, Theology and Religion Studies programs is frequently ignored, unappreciated or grossly under-utilised. This pedagogic deficiency urgently needs to be corrected. One useful introductory approach is consciousness raising via thematic surveys of the field. Before these Hollywood hermeneutics are fully appreciated and pedagogically utilised, its various manifestations need to be identified, mapped out and explicated. This is an immense undertaking, but well worth the effort, however humble the initial offerings. The critical religion and film literature was briefly reviewed and integrated into the text to enhance narrative coherence (albeit, with a strong reportage flavour). Using textually based, humanist film criticism as the analytical lens (i.e., examining the textual world inside the frame, but not the world outside the frame—Bywater & Sobchack, 1989; Telotte, 2001), the popular cinema was scanned and three taxonomic categories of this cultural phenomena were revealed. Namely: (1) Bible-quoting and explicit scriptural references, (2) Christ-figures, and (3) subtextual biblical characters, props and references. The following is a brief explication, with copious filmic exemplars, of these three categories.

1.0 Bible-Quoting and Explicit Scriptural References

The popular cinema is full of Scriptures (or pseudo-Scriptures) being quoted, used or abused. For example, the apocalyptic film End of Days portrayed an assassin-priest, Fr. Thomas Aquinas (Derrick O’Connor) whose hideout was full of manuscripts about the Devil and the Apocalypse. Scrawled in blood upon his wall was the text from Revelation 20:7 concerning Satan’s release from prison. In the TV movie Man of Miracles, minister Joe Cass (John Ritter) visited his sick friend, Ernie Blevins (Gary Basaraba) to comfort him while in hospital, and so he read aloud John 3:16 about God’s love and his promise of everlasting life. For similar stress reduction reasons, in the SF TV movie Epoch, macho military man Captain Tower (Brian Thompson) slowly succumbed to the fear of an immanent apocalyptic doom due to the re-emergence of a floating monolith designated “Torus.” This alien artifact was deposited in present-day Bhutan approximately four billion years ago to monitor human development and pass judgment upon the survival of the species. During this tension-filled incident, the hard-nosed Captain Tower started reading from a pocket Bible to comfort himself. Later, he started acting as a de facto prophet by reading out an Old Testament passage from it (Ps. 121:2-3, 5-8—ironically, with “New Testament” clearly stamped on the cover) as if giving a holy warning to his less religiously inclined colleagues. Regrettably, Bible-quoting by the mentally distressed, the psychotic and the socially disturbed is a common Hollywood stereotype that aids in the character assassination of Christianity (i.e., sickness by association).

In Liar Liar, the unscrupulous, smooth-talking lawyer Fletcher Reede (Jim Carrey) proclaimed that: “The truth shall set you free” (aka John 8:32). Consequently, in response to his young son’s fervent birthday wish that he stops lying for 24 hours, Fletcher is mysteriously compelled to tell the absolute truth to all he encounters, with hilarious results. Despite numerous social disasters, by films end he is free of the compulsion and psychologically free. He then reconciles with his estranged family and becomes a truly decent human being again. Similarly, Sr. Helen Prejean (Susan Sarandon) was trying to make the detestable death row inmate Matthew “Matt” Poncelet (Sean Penn) a decent human being by helping him come to terms with his heinous crimes. She also used John 8:32 to do it, although she had to work hard to refine Poncelet’s biased interpretation of it, namely: “So I pass that lie detector test and I’m home free.”

An unusual and highly erotic use of Scripture occurred in The Pillow Book, a film about calligraphy on human parchment when Jerome (Ewan McGregor) used Nagiko’s (Vivian Wu’s) naked body to reproduced biblical quotations. As Liliana M. Nutu (2003, p. 83) observed: “She is a scroll bearing the Lord’s Prayer (written in English and Latin), her arms outstretched sideways evoking the Crucifixion.” This was an interesting postmodern example of the literal, living Word. In the American football film, Remember the Titans, there is:

…a number of vaguely biblical statements made by the characters in the film (in references to children of God, sinful pride, the world, etc.) [and] there are explicit references to the biblical texts of Genesis 4 (the Cain and Abel story) and to Isaiah 40:30-31 (the promise that those who hope in Yahweh will run and not grow weary)” (Runions, 2003, p. 44).

In particular, Coach Yoast’s little daughter Sheryl Yoast (Hayden Panettiere) said: “I wanted the hall of fame real bad, just plain old jealousy, as old as Cain and Abel.” This was an appropriate biblical-cum-emotional sentiment given the competitive struggle between Coach Bill Yoast (Will Patton) and African-American Coach Herman Boone (Denzel Washington) and their respective football teams at the T. C. Williams High School. The Isaiah reference came during the team’s prep rally when Lewis Lastik (Ethan Suplee) broke into song with: “Even youths grow tired and weary. Even young men stumble and fall. But those who trust in the Lord will renew their strength” (aka Isa. 40:30-31). In reply, his teammate Jerry “Rev” Harris (Craig Kirkwood) sang back: “They will soar on wings like eagles, like eagles, y’all, like eagles, y’all” (aka Isa. 40:31) with Lewis finishing the biblical quote with: “They will walk and not grow faint” (aka Isa. 40:31). All of this was good-natured football fun with the obvious scriptural-cum-moral references that was totally appropriate for a Disneyfied film.

A more serious Scripture-quoting battle occurred in Dead Man Walking when Chaplain Farley (Scott Wilson) was upset with Sr. Helen Prejean (Susan Sarandon) for championing the murder Matt Poncelet (Sean Penn). He challenged her with: “Are you familiar with the Old Testament, ‘Thou shalt not kill but if you shed the blood of man by man shall your blood be shed?’” (Gen. 9:6). Helen has a swift and faintly disrespectful rejoinder, “Yes. Are you familiar with the New Testament where Jesus speaks of grace and reconciliation?” (Reinhartz, 2003b, p. 46). It was another battle between O.T. and N.T. religious attitudes, and which underpinned the pro and con capital punishment debate showcased within the film. When Poncelet finally breaks down and confesses to his part in the murder and rape, his deathly fate is assured, but his spiritual rebirth had just begun.

As Helen and Matt walk slowly towards the execution chamber, she reads to him from Isaiah 43:1-2: “I have called thee by thy name, thou art mine. Should you pass through the sea, I shall be with thee; should thou walk through fire thou shalt not be scorched, and the flame shall not burn you.”…By reading these words of salvation, Helen comforts Matt with the promise of divine protection and assures him that he has been redeemed, not only in her eyes but in the eyes of God (Reinhartz, 2003b, p. 49).

2.0 Christ-figures: The Re-enfleshment of Jesus Christ

One of Hollywood’s most famous, popular and widespread sacred subtexts is the Christ-figure, that is, the cinematic re-enfleshment of Jesus Christ. As Adele Reinhartz (2003a) explained:

…Jesus is not portrayed directly but is represented symbolically or at times allegorically. Christ figures can be identified either by particular actions that link them with Jesus, such as being crucified symbolically (Pleasantville, 1998), walking on water (The Truman Show, 1998) or wearing a cross (Nell, 1994; Babette’s Feast, 1987). Indeed, any film that has redemption as a major theme (and this includes many, if not most, recent Hollywood movies) is liable to use some Jesus symbolism in connection with the redemptive hero figure (p. 189).

In fact, there are many structural characteristics of the cinematic Christ-figure (Kozlovic, 2004), which is ontologically distinct from the Jesus-figure. In fact, the “idea of ‘the Christ-figure’ seeks to counter the straitjacketing of Jesus in physical correspondence to a stereotype” (Coates, 2003, p. 80). Basically:

“Jesus-figure” refers to any representation of Jesus himself. “Christ-figure” describes any figure in the arts who resembles Jesus. The personal name of Jesus (in line with contemporary spirituality, thought and practice) is used for the Jesus-figure. The title “Christ” - the “Messiah,” or the “Anointed One” - is used for those who are seen to reflect his mission. In cinema, writers and directors present both Jesus-figures and Christ-figures (Malone, 1997, pp. 59-60).

These cinematic re-configurations are frequently undetected by the public, but as a living genre, they grow in number, diversity and complexity every year (Baugh, 1997; Deacy, 2001; Kozlovic, 2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2002a, 2002b, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2003d, 2004; Kreitzer, 1993, 2002; Scully, 1997). Christ-figure films (aka Christ myth films; Christ-event films) can take on any genre, shape or form for they need only embody the key elements of the Christian mythos and then faithfully adhere to the logic of the christic hermeneutic thereafter. In the twinkle of a cinematic eye, they can transfigure their mundane characters into mystical Christ-figures, that is, from the profane to the holy. Thus, providing a rich spiritual-biblical-theological vision for audiences who have the eyes to see and the ears to hear (Ezek. 44:5).

Encouragingly, many commentators have acknowledged this subtextual phenomenon. For example, as John C. Lyden (2003, p. 199) noted regarding E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial: “There is a clear use of Christian imagery by Spielberg in this film, as it includes a savior with healing powers who comes from the heavens, dies, and is resurrected to ascend to heaven once more.” Indeed, its alien storyline prompted Fr. Peter Malone (1988, p. 59) to remark that: “after O.T. and N.T., E.T. might be interpreted as the Extra Testament!” Similarly, Richard Walsh (2002) saw the stressed ex-cop Jericho Cane (Arnold Schwarzenegger) in End of Days as a different sort of Christ-figure. He argued that:

Jericho is a suffering victim, not an avenging victor. He is a Gospel Jesus, not a Revelation or “Captain America” Christ-figure. Nonetheless, he is an American Jesus because his suffering preserves a threatened good order, rather than ending (or signifying the end) of some wicked age. Jericho’s death does what the devil incarnate says Jesus’ sacrifice accomplished. It buys humans more time. The devil is not defeated, only restrained (p. 15).

Not surprisingly, the initials of this sacrificial protagonist is J.C. (Jericho Cane/Jesus Christ) and another dead give away of a Christ-figure construction (Kozlovic, 2004). Similarly, some critics saw the murdering rapist Matthew Poncelet (Sean Penn) in Dead Man Walking as “analogous to the good thief” who “died christically, that is, saved or “christified” by his contact with Jesus” (Baugh, 1997, p. 286). Others saw Sr. Helen Prejean (Susan Sarandon) as the Christ-figure (Gudmundsottir, 2002) whereas Adele Reinhartz (2003b) considered Matt Poncelet to be the film’s primary Christ-figure. As she argued:

…the most explicit Christ imagery is associated not with either of these characters [Chaplain Farley (Scott Wilson); Sr. Helen Prejean] but with Matt. Like all those who are executed by lethal injection, Matt is strapped to a narrow table, in cruciform position, with his arms outstretched and his legs slightly apart. For his final words to his victims, the table is tipped upright so that Matt can face them through the glass. The tableau, while realistic, is also a striking parallel to Christ at Golgotha, nailed to the cross and flanked on both sides, in Jesus’ case, by two criminals (Matt. 27:38) and, in Matt’s case, by two prison guards, who, though not criminal in any formal sense, are from the film’s perspective guilty of murder by virtue of their collusion in this act of state-sponsored execution. This image conveys that Matt, like Christ, has indeed been killed unjustly by the state for political reasons at the same time as it symbolizes his spiritual redemption and his rebirth as a son of God. While the words of the priest who presides over his funeral (“With the love of God and the peace of our dear Lord Jesus Christ bless and console us and gently wipe away every tear from our eyes, Amen”) may reflect a standard liturgy, it takes on new meaning in the context of Matt’s own spiritual journey (p. 53).

However, this christic interpretation of Poncelet is less desirable given that the crucified Jesus was not guilty of any crime, let alone rape and murder, nor did Jesus make lecherous comments to nuns or demonstrate sociopath tendencies. One would suggest that the good thief is a more apt analogy for Poncelet because it does not insult Jesus in this distasteful subtextual fashion (i.e., covert character assassination). In addition, Poncelet was male, just as the good thief was male. Poncelet was guilty of his crime; he admitted it, was sentenced to death and put in a cruciform position to die. Just like the good thief who was guilty of his ancient crime, which he admitted and was punished for it via crucifixion (Matt. 27:38,44; Mark 15:27). Poncelet recognised and publicly admitted the errors of his ways before the Christ-figure Sr. Prejean, his executioners and witnesses while strapped in a cruciform posture, as was thus redeemed in her eyes because of it. Just like the good thief recognised and supported the innocent Jesus before his executioners and the public while being crucified, and he was assured of a place in heaven by Jesus because of it (Luke 23:39-43).

On other occasions, Adele Reinhartz (2003b) interpreted the cowboy hero-protagonist Preacher (Clint Eastwood) in Pale Rider as an avenging warrior Christ-figure because:

…his body is marked by wounds of an earlier time that should have killed him but did not. At the same time, the wounds that he inflicts on others often mark their hands, their feet or the middle of their foreheads, reminiscent of the wounds suffered by Christ. These are not meant to label them as Christ-like but rather to identify the Preacher as an avenging Christ-figure. In this context, his killing of Stockburn [John Russell] not only settles an old score but possibly symbolizes Christ’s final destruction of evil in the world in the eschatological times to come, as described in the book of Revelation (p. 172).

Sometimes, critics want to see Christ-figures in films but hold back from totally committing themselves. This is possibly due to a form of academic embarrassment, or uncertainty about the Bible-character correspondences. Sometimes it is the desire to appropriate the christic subtext for other sociopolitical purposes, just as John C. Lyden (2003) did with John McClane (Bruce Willis) in the cop film Die Hard. As he argued:

…John effectively suffers for the male sins of sexism, his own as well as those of male audience members, as when we see him painfully picking glass out of his bloody feet during his “confession” to [Sgt] Al [Powell (Reginald Veljohnson)], so that he resembles the suffering savior of Christian iconography; the profanity throughout the film also routinely invokes the name of “Christ” or “Jesus,” as Holly [McClane nee Gennero (Bonnie Bedelia)] does when she first sees John’s bloodied and damaged body when he comes to rescue her. I do not want to fall into the sort of theologically overdetermined analysis that I have elsewhere criticized by reducing him to a Christ-figure, but rather to suggest that the film uses this iconography to reinforce the idea of John’s suffering and repentance for male sexism (p. 149).

Or maybe not! Although the idea of engineering an apologetic sexist subtext inside a religious subtext is interesting. Just as exciting as the use of Christ-figures is Hollywood’s deployment of other biblical characters, props and references to reinforce the religious messages of their secular films.

3.0 Subtextual Biblical Characters, Props and References

As Adele Reinhartz (2003b) observed:

With the passing of the epic film genre, there have been relatively few feature films that explicitly set out to retell biblical narratives. But the Bible has by no means disappeared from the cinema. In fact, every year sees growth in the inventory of mainstream commercial films in which the Bible appears, in roles great and small (p. 1).

For example, within Pulp Fiction, hit-man Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson) was “more than ready to allow the possibility of a miracle into his life; when it happens [i.e., a murderous hail of bullets miss him], he announces his resignation on the spot. He still has to be cleansed, however, and learn the true significance of those words in the Bible [i.e., his pre-murder speech based on Ezekiel 25:17], but afterwards he’s going to ‘walk the earth…like Caine in Kung Fu’” (Barnes & Hearn, 1996, p. 81).

Indeed, the intertextual reference to this cult TV series is also appropriate for it starred David Carradine as the American Shaolin priest who in a rage killed the Royal Nephew after he had senselessly murdered Caine’s beloved blind teacher, Master Po (Keye Luke). Caine-the-freshly-minted-murderer fled to America to escape deadly retribution and thereafter work, wander and rest when he could while having spiritually-based kung fu adventures every week. Furthermore, in an even deeper layer of subtextual engineering, Adele Reinhartz (2003b) considered that the Caine reference was doubly pertinent because he was also a Cain-figure. As she claimed:

The Caine parallel is apt. Caine is wanted for murder in China, but he has repented of his crime and has come to America to help others. But in watching the film itself, the double entendre is obvious, for it evokes the biblical Cain, the first murderer, whom God sentenced to a lifetime of wandering the earth in punishment for killing his brother: “When you till the ground, it will no longer yield to you its strength; you will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth” (Gen. 4:12)” (p. 106).

Ulrike Vollmer (2003) examined The Tango Lesson for the biblical parallels between the two tango dancers, Sally (Sally Potter) and Pablo (Pablo Veron), and the battle between Jacob and the angel (Gen. 32:24-32) as portrayed in Eugene Delacroix’s painting. The analysis discovered considerably more that a direct parallel between an image of the dancers and the composition of the figures in the painting. Similarly, Eric S. Christianson (2003) examined the biblical parallels of violence and deceit between the cunning Benjamite Ehud, a judge of Israel (Judg. 3:15-31), and the Man With No Name (Clint Eastwood) in the spaghetti western For a Few Dollars More. Many striking commonalties were detected.

At the other end of the spectrum, the animated children’s movie “The Lion King (1994) featured a Moses-like hero who flees the land of his birth, wanders in the desert, begins life anew in a foreign land, and is persuaded to return as a leader after experiencing a theophany” (Reinhartz, 2003b, p. 2). This Disney film starred the young lion cub Simba (voice of Jonathan Taylor Thomas). As part of its narrative it included “the stories of paradise, the fall, desert wandering, the reign of Satan, the need for a savior, and the cataclysmic destruction of the earth, followed by the return of the savior who restores peace and the beginning of his full reign as rightful king” (Ward, 2002, p. 14). For example, “Simba and Nala [voice of Niketa Calame] represent Adam and Eve, who were tempted by the snake, in this case, Scar [voice of Jeremy Irons]. Here the forbidden fruit is an elephant’s graveyard, the shadow lands—and archetype for death” (Ward, 2002, p. 19). So, when the immature Simba takes up Scar’s challenge of “only the bravest of lions” go there, it is the beginning of the end of their harmonious, paradisiacal world and it subsequently inaugurated the Satan-like reign of evil under Scar’s control.

In the cowboy film Pale Rider, the avenging angel/savior/hero-protagonist known as Preacher (Clint Eastwood) was dramatically linked to the “pale horse” of Revelation 6:8 (one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse called Death, followed by Hell). To filmicly reinforce this biblical link, Megan Wheeler (Sydney Penny) read out Revelation 6:4-8 to her mother Sarah Wheeler (Carrie Snodgrass). This aural event was intercut with images of the Preacher to visually reinforce the scriptural connection between Death and the Preacher. In Three Kings, a war film spoofing Operation Desert Storm (the USA’s 1991 war on Iraq), its plot revolved around the quest for stolen gold by three American soldiers. Namely, Sergeant Troy Barlow (Mark Wahlberg), Staff Sergeant Chief Elgin (Ice Cube), Special Forces Major Archie Gates (George Clooney) and Private Conrad Vig (Spike Jonze), who was subsequently killed in action, thus leaving behind the treasure-seeking triumvirate. Not only did the film’s title allude to the visit of the Magi (commonly referred to as the “three wise men”) to the Christ child (Matt. 2:7-12), but the plot also alluded to the story of Moses leading the people of Israel during their exodus from Egypt (Exod. 5-15), and then intertwined both the O.T. and N.T. stories together. As Erin Runions (2003) explained:

There is a clear exodus trope here. True to the film’s opening, the men are like Moses figures, negotiating the people’s crossing out of enslavement. And true to the biblical text, the men, like Moses, are not able to cross with the people (Moses having been banned from the promised land for disobeying Yahweh’s command [Num. 20:1-12; Deut. 3:1-29]. But the men’s “self-sacrifice” in that climactic scene (made somewhat more serious by the presence of Conrad’s shrouded body), also gives them a Christlike status, filling out the early hint of Jesus’ presence with/as them and making up the parallel of Jesus and Moses complete. As savior figures, the three men step in to fill the lacuna opened up at the beginning of the film around the figure of Jesus. In this way, the biblical imagery frames the men’s action as both Mosaic and messianic (p. 74).

Occasionally, the popular cinema offers some non-biblical speculations from the Devil’s point of view about God, his role and plans for humanity. For example, in End of Days, the Devil (Gabriel Byrne) spoke unflatteringly about God to Jericho Cane (Arnold Schwarzenegger) saying: “Let me tell you something about Him. He is the biggest underachiever of all time. He’s just got a good publicist, that’s all. If something good happens, it’s His will. If something bad happens, He moves in mysterious ways” (Mitchell, 2002, p. 112). In the Devil’s view, the Bible is just an “overblown press kit.” Similarly, in The Devil’s Advocate, John Milton/the Devil (Al Pacino) said to Kevin Lomax (Keanu Reeves): “Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He’s a prankster. He gives man instincts…He sets the rules in opposition. It’s the goof of all time. Look, but don’t touch. Touch, but don’t taste. Taste, but don’t swallow. And while you’re jumping from one foot to the next, what is He doing?” (Mitchell, 2002, p. 84).

Yet, in the British Devil comedy Bedazzled, George Spiggott/the Devil (Peter Cook) did make sense when he said to Stanley Moon (Dudley Moore): “In order for people to be really good, they have to make a free choice between good and evil, and chose good. I’m a vital part of His plan. I provide the evil” (Mitchell, 2002, p. 38), which does not sound that implausible, especially when considering Isaiah 45:7, namely: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” Besides, as Harry O. Tophet/the Devil (George Burns) said to Bobby Shelton (Ted Wass) in the comedy film Oh, God! You Devil: “Listen, if I didn’t exist, God would have to make me up. I make Him look good” (Mitchell, 2002, p. 217). All these devilish comments are well worth meditating upon for lively theological debate.

Conclusion

The above ad hoc survey of Christianity within the popular cinema is merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There are innumerable examples of these religious phenomena and much more research work is needed to survey the entire field and extract its many delightful lessons. All that is needed is the desire and will to proceed and some academic humility regarding the true value of pop culture. As John C. Lyden (2003) argued:

It will not hurt traditional religion or academia to listen to the films that speak so strongly in our culture or to recognize that they may have something to say that is worth hearing; the only thing that may be damaged is our pride, as we may not be able to continue to assert our superiority to the texts we so confidently deride (p. 250).

Further research into the emerging and exciting interdisciplinary field of religion-and-film is warranted, recommended and certainly long over due.

Notes

Although there are real ontological differences between “film,” “cinema,” “movie,” “video,” “TV movie,” “CD,” “DVD” “Internet movie” etc., they are all audiovisual images and will be treated herein as essentially interchangeable.
The Authorized King James Version of the Bible (KJV aka AV) will be used throughout, unless quoting other translations.

References

Barnes, A., & Hearn, M. (1996). Tarantino, A to Zed: The films of Quentin Tarantino. London: Batsford.

Baugh, L. (1997). Imaging the divine: Jesus and Christ-figures in film. Kansas City: Sheed and Ward.

Bywater, T., & Sobchack, T. (1989). An introduction to film criticism: Major critical approaches to narrative film. New York: Longman.

Campbell, R. H., & Pitts, M. R. (1981). The Bible on film: A checklist, 1897-1980. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press.

Christianson, E. C. (2003). A fistful of shekels: Scrutinizing Ehud’s entertaining violence (Judges 3:12-30). Biblical Interpretation, 11(1), 53-78.

Coates, P. (2003). Cinema, religion and the romantic legacy. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Deacy, C. (2001). Screen christologies: Redemption and the medium of film. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

DeBona, G. (2004). Art and media: George Aichele and Richard Walsh, screening scripture: Intertextual connections between scripture and film. Homiletic: A Review of Publications in Religious Communication, 29(1), 47-49.

Dick, B. F. (1998). Anatomy of film (3 rd ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Ellis, R. (2001). Movies and meaning. The Expository Times, 112(9), 304-308.

Frost, M., & Hirsch, A. (2003). The shaping of things to come: Innovation and mission for the 21 st century church. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Gallagher, M. P. (1997). Theology, discernment and cinema. In J. R. May (Ed.), New image of religious film (pp. 151-160). Kansas City: Sheed & Ward.

Godawa, B. (2002). Hollywood worldviews: Watching films with wisdom & discernment. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Gudmundsottir, A. (2002). Female Christ-figures in films: A feminist critical analysis of Breaking the Waves and Dead Man Walking. Studia Theologica, 56(1), 27-43.

Kappelman, T. A. (2000). Film and the Christian. In J. Solomon (Ed.), Arts, entertainment, & Christian values: Probing the headlines that impact your family (pp. 119-130). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.

Keene , M. (2002). The Bible. Oxford: Lion.

Kinnard, R., & Davis, T. (1992). Divine images: A history of Jesus on the screen. New York, NY: Citadel Press.

Kozlovic, A. K. (2000). The Bible is alive and well and living in popular films: A survey of some Western cinematic transfigurations of Holy Writ. Australian Religion Studies Review, 13(1), 56-71.

Kozlovic, A. K. (2001a). The transmogrified Bible: A survey of some popular Western cinematic transfigurations of biblical characters. Religious Education Journal of Australia, 17(1), 7-13.

Kozlovic, A. K. (2001b). From holy aliens to cyborg saviours: Biblical subtexts in four science fiction films. The Journal of Religion and Film, 5(2), 1-13. [http://www.unomaha.edu/~wwwjrf/cyborg.htm].

Kozlovic, A. K. (2002a). Superman as Christ-figure: The American pop culture movie Messiah. The Journal of Religion and Film, 6(1), 1-25. [http://www.unomaha.edu/~wwwjrf/superman.htm].

Kozlovic, A. K. (2002b). Feature films and sacred subtexts: Popular visual piety as applied religious education. Religious Education Journal of Australia, 18(2), 3-10.

Kozlovic, A. K. (2003a). Popular films and the avoidance of cinematic separatism: Eight justifications for celluloid religion. Quodlibet: Online Journal of Christian Theology and Philosophy, 5(1), 1-14. [http://www.quodlibet.net/kozlovic-cinema.shtml].

Kozlovic, A. K. (2003b). Have lamb will martyr: Samson as a rustic Christ-figure in Cecil B. DeMille’s Samson and Delilah (1949). Reconstruction: Studies in Contemporary Culture, 3(1), 1-23. [http://www.reconstruction.ws/031/kozlovic.htm].

Kozlovic, A. K. (2003c). Christ-figures and other hidden biblical references in popular films: The 20th century biblia pauperum. Journal of Religious Education, 51(1), 57-64.

Kozlovic, A. K. (2003d). Sacred subtexts and popular film: A brief survey of four categories of hidden religious figurations. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 18(3), 315-332.

Kozlovic, A. K. (2003e). Religious film fears 1: Satanic infusion, graven images and iconographic perversion. Quodlibet: Online Journal of Christian Theology and Philosophy, 5(2-3), 1-19. [http://www.quodlibet.net/kozlovic-fears.shtml].

Kozlovic, A. K. (2003f). Religious film fears 2: Cinematic sinfulness. Quodlibet: Online Journal of Christian Theology and Philosophy, 5(4), 1-20. [http://www.quodlibet.net/kozlovic-fears2.shtml].

Kozlovic, A. K. (2004). The cinematic Christ-figure. The Furrow: A Journal for the Contemporary Church, 55(1), 26-30.

Kreitzer, L. J. (1993). The New Testament in fiction and film: On reversing the hermeneutical flow. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

Kreitzer, L. J. (2002). Gospel images in fiction and film: On reversing the hermeneutical flow. London: Sheffield Academic Press/Continuum.

Lyden, J. C. (2003). Film as religion: Myths, morals, and rituals. New York: New York University Press.

Malone, P. (1988). Movie Christs and antichrists. Eastwood, NSW: Parish Ministry Publications.

Malone, P. (1997). Jesus on our screens. In J. R. May (Ed.), New image of religious film (pp. 57-71). Kansas City: Sheed & Ward.

Malone, P., & Pacatte, R. (2003). Lights, camera…faith! A movie lover’s guide to Scripture. A movie lectionary - cycle C. Boston: Pauline Books and Media.

Miller, S. M., & Huber, R. V. (2003). The Bible: A history. The making and impact of the Bible. Oxford: Lion.

Mitchell, C. P. (2002). The devil on screen: Feature films worldwide, 1913 through 2000. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Nutu, L. M. (2003). The seduction of words and flesh and the desire of God: A poststructuralist reading of John 1:1, 14 and The Pillow Book. Biblical Interpretation, 11(1), 79-97.

Paglia, C. (1994). Vamps & tramps: New essays. New York: Vintage Books.

Reinhartz, A. (2003a). Jesus on the silver screen. In N. N. Perez (Ed.), Revelation: Representations of Christ in photography (pp. 186-189). London: Merrell/The Israel Museum, Jerusalem.

Reinhartz, A. (2003b). Scripture on the silver screen. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

Runions, E. (2003). How hysterical: Identification and resistance in the Bible and film. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Scully, M. (1997). The message of film 5: Jesus in modern media. Milwaukee, WI: Hi-Time Publishing.

Smith J. A. (2001). Hollywood theology: The commodification of religion in twentieth-century films. Religion and American Culture: A Journal of Interpretation, 11(2), 191-231.

Stern, R. C., Jefford, C. N., & DeBona, G. (1999). Savior on the silver screen. New York: Paulist Press.

Tatum, W. B. (1997). Jesus at the movies: A guide to the first hundred years. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press.

Telotte, J. P. (2001). Science fiction film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Urbanski, B. (2004). Jesus goes to the movies. Youthworker: The Contemporary Journal for Youth Ministry, 20(6), 60-61.

Vidal, G. (1993). Screening history. London: Abacus.

Vollmer, U. (2003). I will not let you go unless you teach me the tango: Sally Potter’s The Tango Lesson. Biblical Interpretation, 11(1), 98-112.

Walsh, R. (2002). On finding a non-American revelation: End of Days and the book of Revelation. In G. Aichele & R. Walsh (Eds.), Screening Scripture: Intertextual connections between Scripture and film (pp. 1-23). Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

Walsh, R. (2003). Reading the Gospels in the dark: Portrayals of Jesus in film. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.

Ward, A. R. (2002). Mouse morality: The rhetoric of Disney animated film. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Filmography

Babette’s Feast (aka Babette’s Gastebud) (1987, dir. Gabriel Axel)

Bedazzled (1967, dir. Stanley Donen)

David and Bathsheba (1951, dir. Henry King)

Dead Man Walking (1995, dir. Tim Robbins)

The Devil’s Advocate (1997, dir. Taylor Hackford)

Die Hard (1988, dir. John McTiernan)

End of Days (1999, dir. Peter Hyams)

Epoch (2000, dir. Matt Cod)

E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982, dir. Steven Spielberg)

For a Few Dollars More (1966, dir. Sergio Leone)

The King of Kings (1927, dir. Cecil B. DeMille)

Liar Liar (1997, dir. Tom Shadyac)

The Lion King (1994, dir. Roger Allers & Rob Minkoff)

Man of Miracles (aka Holy Joe) (1999, dir. Larry Peerce)

Nell (1994, dir. Michael Apted)

Oh, God! You Devil (1984, dir. Paul Bogart)

Pale Rider (1985, dir. Clint Eastwod)

The Passion of the Christ (2004, dir. Mel Gibson)

The Pillow Book (1996, dir. Peter Greenaway)

Pleasantville (1998, dir. Gary Ross)

Pulp Fiction (1994, dir. Quentin Tarantino)

Remember the Titans (2000, dir. Boaz Yakin)

Samson and Delilah (1949, dir. Cecil B. DeMille)

The Tango Lesson (1997, dir. Sally Potter)

The Ten Commandments (1923, dir. Cecil B. DeMille)

The Ten Commandments (1956, dir. Cecil B. DeMille)

The Truman Show (1998, dir. Peter Weir)

Three Kings (1999, dir. David O. Russell)

Dead Man Walking