Recently in Bible in the movies Category

If most people don't get the biblical references, why do the creators of popular tv, movies, music and lit still use them so much? Pondering this question over iced tea with a novelist, Ph.D.-candidate friend, we decided: it's tough to say. Here are a couple of ideas that we bounced around: 

1) Audiences do recognize the biblical language, themes or characters and that's enough because the Bible continues to resonate or at least suggest something greater than what immediatley meets the eye.

2) The creators know that only a few people are going to know the reference but think, "Who cares? We know it's in there. It's cool and adds levels of meaning that are super-rich. The minority who pick up on it are going to love it."

3) It keeps people like me in business. Ok, no. That's definitely not their reason... and it's hardly a business for me. But I do love catching those biblical references, contemplating how the creators integrated and interpreted them, and what that means for the greater story or art.

What do you think is the explanation?

Given its title, I figured that the movie would have something to do with demons -- a whole, well, legion of them... in full-on "possession" mode. After all, "Legion" is the name of a biblical demoniac, according to the stories in Mark and Luke, because many demons were involved. But in the movie, Michael (our hero-angel gone rogue) actually goes to some trouble to explain explicitly that the troops of zombie-like murderers are not possessed by demons but rather are angels fulfilling the command of God. And yet. Here the movie suggests that the line between angels and demons frays as God's patience wears thin. That's just one thing among many that I found intriguing about this movie. Another (and I admit I loved this) is the paradox of obedience. [spoiler alert!] Michael is finally deemed a better servant of God than the hyper-obedient Gabriel, set on fulfilling God's command to kill off the human race. Precisely by disobeying, Michael satisfies the "need" (vs. "want" hmmm) of God. That part's a little silly (God as some adolescent to the angels' maturity?!). But hope for a future unwritten (no theological fatalism, here), and mercy at the hint of goodness... I like that.

Did you know that "Eli" means "my God," in Hebrew? Yup. In one form, anyway. So, even if you'd missed all the previews, reviews, and commentary in between on the movie "The Book of Eli," you still might guess that the book in question is the Bible. The English translation King James Version, to be precise. I'm no film critic, so I'll leave that to the pros. But I can say that the movie gives viewers some interesting Bible things to think about, like: Is Washington's character somehow protected supernaturally in his quest to bring the Bible west -- protected by God, or by the Bible itself? If he is, what does that make of God, of the Bible? And: the KJV is undeniably a valuable literary artifact, even if one doesn't believe in it at all. So it would make sense to include in that post-apocalyptic library on the west coast. But does the movie suggest that that particular version is The (one and only) Bible? And do you think that a person knows the Bible if he or she has memorized a particular version? [Me? I think yes... and no...] Then of course there's all the violence. Our Bible-toting hero is no turn-the-other-cheek kind of guy. Timeless question: when should one and when should one not be such a radical pacifist? Finally, how about the evil megalomaniac, certain that if he had that book, his power to control and manipulate toward his own twisted aims would be complete? Does he know the Bible so well? Questions to contemplate, debate.... 

I wish I'd had the presence of mind to bring a notebook with me to "Sherlock Holmes." I should know better -- that the Bible shows up everywhere. This movie was no exception. A fun flick -- a little cerebral, lots of action, and a sobering reminder that what may seem to be convincing magic is sophisticated manipulation of the physical world. (And its seductive agent may be a malicious liar.) The movie has several biblical references that I just can't remember in detail. In addition to the evil Blackwood's overt associations with Jesus (busting out of his tomb after 3 days, eucharist-like ritual, and address as "Lord"), was it Revelation 1:18 that Blackwood cites? (And does the movie make the common mistake of identifying the book as "Revelations," with an "s" on the end?) Also, I remember being startled to see several Hebrew Bible/Old Testament references in the iconography of Blackwood's estate. For example, was it an altar or a kind of throne-like structure that was flanked by golden winged creatures (like descriptions of the biblical ark of the covenant... which serves in the temple as a kind of divine ottoman)? And what's with the Hebrew shin, lamed, mem, vav, tav writing underneath some structure (again, was it a different scene with Blackwood on a throne)? In the Hebrew Bible that word appears as such as a proper name. It also appears as a word modifying "stones" in a couple of references to building an altar of "unhewn" stones (so translated because the word is based on the root shin, lamed, mem which can mean "whole"; that's where the word shalom "peace" comes from, too). I still don't quite "get" why it would be in that scene, though, unless it's meant to mark an altar where a sacrifice would be perfomed (as in Deut 27:6 and Josh 8:31). Whatever the case, does this association of Hebrew with the occult have anti-Semitic implications? While I don't think that that the movie is anti-Jewish (after all, the guy manipulating these symbols and appealing to New Testament texts is obviously mis-directed... to say the least), such associations can be problematic, given the long Christian suspicion of Jewish rituals and traditions. Overall, the movie was good, entertaining fun and gives astute viewers some intriguing things to think about. 

As I work my way through the Buffy tv series ("work" is too severe a word here -- I'm having a blast), I'm struck by how bilbical themes, language, and images lend themselves to the science fiction imagination. This isn't earth-shattering news, I know. What's striking is how the Bible is translated into this medium. Appreciating the wild and wacky symbolism of biblical apocalyptic -- including gargantuan bad guys battling the supernatural good in a world that seems like ours but is nevertheless radically transformed -- one expects that to have some carrying power into our cultural sci fi milieu. And it does dominate, but that's not the only biblical genre to make the leap from ancient page to postmodern screen. Themes of journey, home, love, and faith washed with the biblical brush of narrative and poetry show up right regularly, too. I'm going to be following Dr. James McGrath's blog "Exploring Our Matrix" as he preps to teach a course next semester on the topic of religion and science fiction.

I saw the movie, "The Invention of Lying" last night, not expecting to find any biblical or religious associations or messages in it. Hah. I should know better! They're everywhere. It's really quite a sweet story in which the main character becomes a kind of Moses, even standing before an expectant crowd with two tablets (pizza boxes, actually) of written info from "the man in the sky." If I could hang out with you in person, at a cozy coffee shop for some post-movie conversation, here are some of what I'd want you to tell me and to talk about: How do you think the effects of the movie character's declarations are like or unlike the effect of Moses' great Sinai moment? In some ways, the main character seems modeled also on Jesus -- his knowledge of things greater than what anyone else can see, the sacrifices that he makes out of what can only be a kind of love... Yes? No? And most general: what about this character is like (or not) any religion's founder, or (person aside) what circumstances does the movie share with the founding of a religion?

The Coen brothers are out with a new one. Among my favorite film-makers today, the Coen brothers just released "A Serious Man," based in part on the biblical Job. I'm eager to see how they handle the story. Do they present their Job as a saint, of storied patience, like the popular characterization of this biblical figure. Or do they show their Job railing against his friends and even God, agonizing about his fate with alternating quietude and fury, as he appears in the biblical texts? I wonder how they present the origins of their Job's suffering. Is God be implicated, or no? And how does it end, since the biblical Job's final statement is a bit of an enigma, or at least affords a couple of different interpretations. Whatever the case, I anticipate some humor, gritty poignancy, and a fresh "take" on the timeless problem of undeserved suffering. 

Quentin Tarantino's new movie, Inglourious Basterds, was informed in part by taking part in a seder at Philip Roth's house. The Passover seder is a religious practice of remembrance commanded by none other than God in the Bible to commemorate God's liberating the Hebrew people from Egypt in order that they could be free to be servants of God. With violence, liberated from violence. 

In Inglourious Basterds, the extraordinary violence that characterizes Tarantino's filmic art takes on a new meaning in the context of a real, historical moment -- the Holocaust. Elie Wiesel, holocaust survivor, and Nobel prize-winning writer, has championed the importance of remembering -- of remembering in order to prevent horrific crimes such as genocide from happening again. 

Elie Wiesel and Quentin Tarantino on the Holocaust. In the same context? Discuss. What does remembering violence require? And to what end?

Spoiler alert: If you haven't yet seen Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino, don't read any more here.

Clint was all Clint in his latest, Gran Torino, but he did a mighty fine Jesus, too. I'm assuming, given the spoiler alert above, that you've already seen the movie. I loved it, especially for its ending. But of course the power of that ending would be nothing without the story and character development that led to it.

By the end, we long for a dramatic blood-letting, a great ass-whooping of the nasty thugs, and we know that Clint is just the guy to do it.