One of the earliest expressions of protest against the cinema was in 1907, when in the city of Worcester, the Catholic Messenger denounced movies as “the Devil’s Lieutenants.” In this same city, the evangelicals were also condemning it. So fierce was the evangelical outcry, that it is recorded that “some youngsters developed a morbid fear just walking by a movie theatre.”[1] Further condemnation of cinema came from the Catholics in 1910, when Pope Pius X prohibited the showing of movies in Catholic churches, and when the so called Legion of Decency condemned certain movies.[2]
Yet not all Christians and ministers had such a bleak view of film. As early as 1897, a French publishing house called La Bonne Presse financed once of the first films ever to focus on the life of Christ. There have been others as well, such as Rich Hollaman and Albert Eaves, who produced a cinematic passion play entitled The Mystery of the Passion Play of Oberammergau.
One of the most outspoken advocates of the cinema during this time period was the Reverend Herbert Jump. Reverend Jump was a Congregationalist minster who wrote a pamphlet called The Religious Possibilities of the Motion Picture (1910). In this pamphlet, he uses the story of the Good Samaritan as an apology for film. He argues that this story is rooted in experience and is a realistic representation of violent crime, which then is used to make the gospel very vivid. Thus, he argues, film should be used in this same manner. Jump does admit that there are some dangers to film, but overall, he sees it as one of the most powerful tools for the gospel that has ever come into existence.
Basically, what we see in our past is that there has been no agreed upon theological statement of film by the church, either Protestant or Catholic. There have been many different approaches, both positively and negatively, when it comes to cinema. However, with such a fragmentation of beliefs, we have also seen a certain type of evolution take place when it comes to how certain Christians have interacted with film. For example, John May notes that over the last forty or so years, there has been a shift in how theologians have engaged the cinema. He says that this shift has moved through five states: discrimination, which focuses on the morality of what is being advocated; second, visibility, which focuses on how religion is represented; third, dialogue, which promotes theological discussion about certain films; fourth, humanism, which investigates how film can promote human progress; fifth, aesthetics, which explores how the transcendent may be manifested in movies.[3]
Jolyn Mitchell also notes how the response to film takes on three different categories among Christians and theologians. Those categories are Film Corrupts, Film Explores, and Film Illuminates.[4] It is to these three categories we now turn.
Film Corrupts
The negative view of film that was birth in the early 1900’s snowballed by the 1920’s, and Christians came out from all over the place, denouncing the cinema as satanic and godless. Jack Linn, and evangelist, called cinema the “devil’s incubator,” and said that Christians “cannot even darken a movie theater, and at the same time fellowship with Christ.”[5] Such was the common view of the day, and pamphlet after pamphlet was being produced, condemning the cinema.
Another noted pamphlet that expressed anxiety about the power of the cinema to corrupt was Burnett and Martell’s The Devil’s Camera (1932). This writing argues that cinema, as a whole, is satanic, and the greatest lie of our time, because it grossly misrepresents life. Film is poison, and it is doing great harm by feeding the godless passions of the multitudes.[6] Indeed, at this point, the majority of those outspoken Christians condemned the cinema.
Film Explores
As things progressed, there were some theologians who came to view film as having the great potential to explore deep theological questions and moral dilemmas. For example, from the early 1960’s to the early 1990’s many films on the life of Jesus were made, along with films presenting “Christ-like” characters.
Theologians and writers such as Neil Hurley, John May, and James Wall paved the way in the area of theological film criticism. In Hurley’s Theology Through Film (1970), he lays out what he terms “cinematic theology.” He begins by arguing that “movies are for the masses what theology is for an elite.” He then traces theological themes through certain movies, and seeks to prove that it is possible to see certain signs of grace in movies.
James Wall also sees film as a channel for theology. In his work, Church and Cinema (1971), he focuses on how the director of a film is intentionally shaping the movie to give it a distinct perspective on the subject at hand. Therefore, what we see is that as things progressed, there were certain Christians who understood cinema to be theological expression. Thus, the goal is to figure out what the director was trying to say, and then interact with that, whether positively or negatively.
Film Illuminates
The question we need to ask here is “do movies have the capacity to bring the bible to life?” Many modern theologians have answered “yes.” One advocate is Adele Reinhartz, who sees film as a way to develop biblical literacy, and how it has the potential to connect people to the biblical text.[7]
The theologian I find the most fascinating on this subject is Larry Kreitzer. Kreitzer explores the ways in which both film and fictional literature can illumine the biblical text. One of his most interesting interactions is with Bram Stoker’s Dracula. He interacts with both the novel (1897) and the Coppola film (1992) to illuminate Paul’s blood motif in First Corinthians. He does similar things with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Spartacus, and Ben Hur.
Then there is Robert Jewett. Like Kreitzer, Jewett uses the writings of Paul to interact with film. Is approach is different from Kreitzer, in that Jewett seeks to use Paul as a “conversation partner” in which he argues that since Paul was so missional and intent on reaching people with the gospel, that if there were films in his day, Paul would have engaged theologically with them.
Finally, one of the greatest theological engagement of film comes from the Catholic Church. Though I do not agree with Catholic theology, I cannot help commend Peter Malone and Rose Pacatte for such an extensive engagement in film and theology. Their work, Lights, Camera…Faith, consists of three books, in which they use the Catholic Lectionary Gospel readings to dialogue with over 70 films. Some of the films include E.T. The Lion King, The Exorcist, The Sixth Sense, Shawshank Redemption, and Saving Private Ryan.
What we have seen from this section, is that theologians are making more of an attempt to use movies as a way of engaging the culture in order to present theology. What we have also seen is that while Christianity has been divided on the subject, there has been an evolving from seeing movies as satanic, to seeing them as a way to have a dialogue with culture and theology.
[1] R. Rosenwieg, “From Rum Shop to Rialto: Workers and Movies” in G.A. Walter, Moviegoing in America , pg 36-37.
[2] Ronald Halway, Beyond the Image pg 26 and James M. Skinner, The Cross and Cinema, pg 193-194.
[3] John R. May, “Religion and Film: Recent Contributions to Continuing Dialogue, “ Critical Review of Books in Religion 9, pg 105-121.
[4] Jolyon Mitchell, “Theology and Film,” The Modern Theologians, pg 738-746.
[5] C.H.J. Linn, “The Movies – The Devil’s Incubator” in T. Lindvall, The Silents of God, pg 279.
[6] R.G. Burnett and E.D. Martell, The Devil’s Camera.
[7] Adele Reinhertz, Scripture on the Silver Screen (2003) and Screening Scripture (2002).