Violence in films and the Christian response
Saturday, September 29, 2007 Labels: general, Movies 2 commentsStemming from a lecture I had a week or so ago on Theology and Film (which actually turned into a brief history of violence in film) I found myself in a long debate in the pub on Monday - the focus of which was that violence in film is gratuitous, wrong - and Christians, especially those in leadership i.e youth leaders -who are called to be set apart should not watch films which depict violence.
Maybe I am not as holy as I should be or maybe I have bad morals, but my argument was defending my decision to watch films that depict violence, and that sometimes Christians need to get off of their high horses and watch the film before they swoop on declaring it as bad and wrong.
Since then I have been looking into the biggest area which Christians tend to have a problem with, and that is the idea that violence in film will influence those who watch it, and encourage similar acts. Being a youth worker - surely I should not be watching films that are not appropriate for young people I work with to see?
I guess my first response is a knee jerk reaction that I'm sure would be very easy to shoot down in a debate - but it is simply that I am over 18 and therefore entitled to see 18 certificate films. Young people I work with are not over 18 and in some cases not over 15 - and therefore I do not condone them watching such material. So while I would obviously not encourage a young person to watch a film that is over their age limit, I feel that I am within my own moral right to see a film that I am legally old enough to do so.
Roberts et al., 1999; and Woodard, 2000 discovered in theri research that American children and youths spend, on average, more than 4 hours a day with television, computers, videotaped movies, and video games. Maybe not too shocking, but link it with Smith and Donnerstein's 1998 report that found out the following:
- 61 percent of television programs contain some violence, and only 4 percent of television programs with violent content feature an "antiviolence" theme.
- 44 percent of the violent interactions on television involve perpetrators who have some attractive qualities worthy of emulation.
- 43 percent of violent scenes involve humor either directed at the violence or used by characters involved with violence.
- Nearly 75 percent of violent scenes on television feature no immediate punishment for or condemnation of violence.
- 40 percent of programs feature "bad" characters who are never or rarely punished for their aggressive actions.
One of the films that seemed to consistantly get targeted in this debate is 'Fight Club.' Now held by many as a classic, it is interesting to note that Fight Club was released in 2000 to widespread controversy and negative reviews. Perhaps the strongest negative reaction was from critic Rex Reed, who called it "A film without a single redeeming quality, which may have to find its audience in Hell." The whole idea of a Fight Clubs seemed to annoy most people, as well as the graphic violence of the fights upsetting most critics, the Daily Mail went up in arms about it, although what is interesting is that only two death scenes actually occur in the film, neither are related to the fights in question.
On the DVD commentary, Edward Norton points out that there are a number of parallels between Nietzschian philosophy and Fight Club. These include themes such as the death of God, trying to find meaning in life through destroying old values and creating new ones, master morality vs. slave morality, the overman, and, of course, the will to power.
The process of fighting oneself and fighting others relates to the will to power--which, while a theory of everything, involves the collision of forces and the success of the stronger. Males in the film find a fight club so appealing because to them, it is a cure to the loneliness inherent in consumer capitalism. The fight club offers male workers something their jobs cannot. Winning or losing a fight does not matter because extreme pleasure or pain makes the male fighter feel strong and alive. Even in defeat the man appears to find himself.
Is that looking a bit too deeply into film? Definately not. I find it hard to take that a film like 'Fight CLub' can be dismissed as adhorently wrong without investigating the message the film brings. Indeed I believe that the image of the two figures braced against each other does imply that if indeed there is an answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything, it most likely lies in each other. Hardly a nihilistic sentiment.
Now don't get me wrong, while I claim that Christians are often concerned about the content of certain films and the appropriateness of viewing particular pieces. This is a valid concern that should not be dismissed too quickly and certainly deserves a response from those who do view objectionable material. But I believe that before we question, it is crucial that Christians understand the exact nature of sex and violence, gratuitous and otherwise, and how it may be employed in art. Taking only violence as the focus here, we must ask ourselves what, if any, redeeming value does it have, and can it be used and viewed under some circumstances?
Contemporary film makers often explore the darkness of the human condition. They don't do it simply to posture or exploit, but to see deeply and lay bare the problems and tensions. But, they also do it to look for answers, even the light of salvation/Salvation. The picture is not always pretty, and the very ugliness of the scene is often necessary to accurately portray the degree of depravity and the miracle of salvific turns in fiction. And with the acquaintance with the dark side of the human condition, when they propose solutions, these solutions appear to be viable and realistic.
And its not as if Christians dont read about violence in the Bible. For example, take the following passage:
Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished (Isaiah 13:15-16).
Now we can rush to claim that violence on screen is wrong and shoud be stopped, but in an oral and textual based society, those who hear the words of Isaiah can easily imagine the described and would have made mental images of the scenes. Does this mean we should edit this bit out of the bible when talking to our youth groups?
If this scene were to be part of a movie, a scriptwriter and director would have actors and actresses play the parts, and the violence would be obvious to all.
And my own personal favourite is found in Judges 20. Where a Levite and his concubine enter the house of an old man from the hill country of Ephraim to spend the night. While they are there, some men in the city want to have homosexual relations with the Levite and demand that the old man hand them over. The men take the man's concubine, rape and kill her, and are nice enough to leave her dead body in the doorway. The Levite is so distraught that he cuts his concubine into twelve pieces and sends the body parts back to his fellow Israelites. The Israelites then form a revenge party and go into battle with the Benjamites who will not turn over the evil men for punishment.
Now even if this was made into a film in the 30's when violence happened largely off screen - this woud make for very disturbing viewing.
Now it could be seen that the purpose of the violence in the stories above may be that the details in each passage provide information which serves as a reason for a later action. Or, the information provided shows us something about the nature of God and the way He deals with sin. If both these examples show a difficult, but necessary use of violence in telling a story, then perhaps violence may be used (portrayed) for redemptive purposes in fictional mediums such as film. Obviously this is not a complete rounded argument, more some ramblings from me as I lie in my bed suffering from a cold, but still - it was worth a ramble.
Hi Tomo,
Interesting! Would be good to talk abut this.
King
Hey Tom, something you've obviously been thinking about. Did you know that a mutual colleague of ours at one time believed he couldn't see how Christian's could justify going to se 18s (or something like that - don't want to misquote).
Just wanted to leave a comment really, because people seemed to have stopped doing so since the rise of Facebook. Just to say I'm still reading and appreciating the content. Keep it coming.