|
GunNewsDaily.com
It Is As It Wasn’t William Lolli Gun News Daily Contributing Editor February 11, 2004 “It is as it was…” remarked the memo from the Vatican where allegedly Pope John Paul had seen an advanced screening of the soon to be released Mel Gibson adaptation of “The Passion of The Christ”. I have not yet seen the film and probably won’t. But the hype is everywhere both within and without the Christian community. Our church bulletin, Bible Study group; from lay-person to scholar— my associations are all a-buzz with the excitement of sitting for two hours and seeing a motion picture adaptation of Christ’s crucifixion. But why? What is the motive and desire to sit and watch an artificially constructed visual representation of the bloody torture and suffering of the Lord? On the one hand, I understand it. Ours is a visually oriented culture. Ours is the first and second generations of television and movies. In the history of mankind, no other generation of humans has been so influenced by sight- and sound-based information transmission. TV and internet images surround us. We seemingly cannot function without sight and sound embossed images reinforcing almost every concept we have of our reality. And I am not talking of simple entertainment alone. We use images to teach every topic, from history to the sciences, literature to mechanics. We use images to convey and persuade every argument, every position on matters societal, cultural, and political. Early in the history of film and motion picture making, Andre Bazin, the famous French critic and the father of modern motion picture thought, asserted that movies fell into two basic constructive classifications: Realism and Formalism. Realism was the capacity to represent the true nature of reality with as little interference from the “camera” as possible. Formalism was the extreme departure from Realism, where the “camera” was a tool by which the minds behind the camera used the camera and its capacity to construct images as a means to create alternative realities. Cartoons, the Musical, and Science Fiction are genres of Formalism. They are not at all real, yet they assert a vicarious experience to the viewer; their images asserting a kind of reality. Star Wars is a great example of influence in this regard. Here is formalism in the extreme. To this day, there are kids and adults who have adopted the Jedi religion. Star Trek fans known as Trekkers, wait for the day when the dreams of Gene Roddenberry become a reality. For many it is already a reality in their own minds. Examples of Realism are the genres of the documentary, the news report, the family photograph, and other such representations of the camera to the public. However, Bazin was careful to assert in his treatise on the subject of film, that there is no true Reality that the “camera” can represent. Like the Heisenberg Principle in physics, the very nature of the camera is Formalism; and its captured images are a construct of “reality” that are inherently unreal. The captured “truth” of the camera is not Truth. Christian believers have complained about the constant influence of media upon society, yet I have found that these same concerned Christians are all agog over the coming film about Christ. When I present these facts to my Christian associates and express my reluctance to participate in the vicarious torture of Christ in a gamble to enhance my appreciation of His sacrifice for me; I am suffused with their shocked expressions of heretical disdain. I am reminded by my friends that I need to pray for the film and for those attending it, so that those who see it will gain a better knowledge and deeper relationship with the Lord. I am told that some who see it may well be converted and accept Christ as Lord and Savior. Some of this group express to me that I am a bit overly sensitive or iconoclastic. However, they cannot find a basis to refute my position once I have expressed it. They only say, “okay, well, to each his own”. And a blithe insouciance of acceptance is expressed. This reaction is to be expected. A culture such as ours that is so saturated by the convincing persuasion of conflicting images and concepts cannot well maintain a solid grasp on core convictions. [This is not to say that a person’s faith will be hurt or destroyed by the film. The convictions I am talking about are the ones regarding circumspection and guarding your mind from polluting imagery.] Rather than be persuaded that a thing is right or wrong, it is more culturally accepted and individually comfortable to relegate conviction to personal choice. “Hey, if that is how you feel, man, it’s okay with me” is the response. But there is little thought paid to the substance of the argument nor the proposition that we as Christian believers are to retain an arms-length circumspection towards the worldly influences of our society. Christian parents go to great lengths to shield their children from the images of pornography in the media or on the internet; yet they do not discipline their children’s nor their own minds by walking circumspectly against the cultural orientations of its imagery. I am not advocating that we all become Quakers or Puritans. But it is wise to note that the concerns of Quakers and Puritans have had historical and factual merit. They did separate themselves from the popular cultures of their day due to its corrupting influences. In that sense, they are to be commended. It is a difficult thing to be a modern American Christian and yet retain a discipline of mind against the very culture in which we live and interact. I am not an advocate of retreating from our society and culture; I am simply asking that we question our rush to participate in its excesses and dissipations. I have been asked to pray for the film and the people who see it. I will not do this. I will instead pray that before seeing the film that people ask themselves, “Do I really need to see someone’s representation of Christ being
tortured and dying for my sins? And if I really do need to see it, then why?” The issue is not whether the camera can really capture the essence of Christ’s suffering. We know it cannot. Nor is the issue whether the camera can capture the power, gravity, and magnitude of sin, which propelled the incomprehensible Love of God to die for us. We know it can’t. Movie critics are saying the Mel Gibson’s film is an accurate representation of the Scriptures. But we know that is not true. Nothing can accurately represent the Scriptures except the Scriptures. Any conceptualization is inaccurate. I believe there is something seriously lacking in a visual exercise that would attempt to put on display the greatest act of love that ever existed. A motion picture used in an attempt to represent Christ, in His act of taking upon Himself the Sins of the World, offends me in the sense that God gave us the Scriptures as the accurate vehicle of that conveyance. And we have arrogantly decided to create a vehicle of our own. Was it something I said? If this
commentary has effected you to respond, you can send your reactions directly
to me at william.lolli@gunnewsdaily.com |