Perhaps no area of discernment is more difficult and more controversial than the Christian’s engagement with culture. Are we to be cultural gluttons, immersing ourselves in the culture around us so we can speak to it from the perspective of first-hand experience? Are we to be cultural anorexics, avoiding culture altogether lest it corrupt us? Or are we to take some middle ground where we appreciate aspects of it while rejecting others? In Hollywood Worldviews, filmmaker and screenwriter Brian Godawa (To End All Wars) weighs in on the task of “Watching Films with Wisdom & Discernment.” While looking at movies he seeks to “help the viewer discern those ideas that drive the story to its destination and how they influence us to live our lives—to understand the story behind the story.”
Godawa takes the position that movies both reflect and influence society. Not only do they reflect the worldview and the values of people within society but they also seek to teach others to embrace these values and worldviews. Thus by studying film we can understand cultural trends. We can understand what people believe and what people are going to believe. This arms us as we seek to reach out to this world with the good news of the gospel. “My goal in this book,” he says, “is to increase art appreciation. I want to inform the reader of the nature of storytelling and analyze how worldviews are communicated through most Hollywood movies, in order to aid the viewer’s ability to discern the ideas being communicated.” So his purpose is to reveal to the reader the worldviews underlying film.
After two chapters of introduction to storytelling, Godawa looks to worldviews in the movies, showing through example after example how every movie communicates something of a worldview. The most common worldviews communicated today are existentialism and postmodernism, though others are certainly present to varying degrees. Having discussed worldview, he turns to spirituality and shows how Hollywood has portrayed Christianity, angels and demons, heaven and hell, and faith. A final chapter is titled “Watching Movies with Eyes Wide Open.” Here he warns that “not all movies are worthy of our time or attention, because all stories are not created equal” and he provides several warnings and encouragements for watching movies.
I enjoyed Godawa’s approach to worldview in film and learned a great deal about movies in general and about movies I’ve already seen. I was able to see how I have not been sufficiently discerning in understanding what movies are attempting to communicate. Where I’ve often seen only a nice story, Godawa makes it clear that there is an agenda behind the story—an agenda that I’ve missed completely. I will be watching movies more carefully in the future and will be seeking to discern what lies behind the story. This was a good lesson for me, I’m sure, and one I am glad to learn.
It seemed strange to me, as I read the book, that one of the topics that is likely to be most important to Christians as they consider movies is relegated to an appendix. In the appendix we find “Sex, Violence & Profanity in the Bible.” Here Godawa provides some justification for watching sex and violence in film and for listening to the inevitable profanity. His justification is one I’ve seen countless times—that the Bible contains these themes as well. “The depiction of evil and its destructive ends can be just as true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, excellent, worthy of praise and profitable as can the depiction of righteousness and its glorious ends.” He points to the importance of context as we wrestle with with these issues. In many films these acts happen within an ungodly worldview and in a way that is never redemptive. “Context makes all the difference between moral exhortation and immoral exploitation of sin.”
If the book has a failing, it is right here. Godawa simply does not provide a satisfactory rationale for watching movies in the first place—or at least movies that include sex, violence and profanity. He does warn that “we must be careful to draw personal lines that we will not cross, based upon what particular things affect us negatively when we are exposed to them in movies.” But he gives little by way of universal negatives—things that would (and maybe should!) negatively affect everyone. He seems usually to draw the line not with certain acts or with a certain level of immortality, but rather with good or bad filmmaking and storytelling.
Godawa seems to fall into a trap of equating words and pictures. In so doing he ignores the power of pictures and the fact that pictures and words communicate in different ways. It is for good reason, I am sure, that God chose to communicate through a written rather than a visual Scripture. Equating “he knew her and she conceived and bore a son” with a steamy and passionate scene on the big screen is irrational. Simply because God saw fit to include an element in Scripture does not give us license to portray it visually. It is also important to note that the descriptions of sexuality and violence with the Bible typically arise in historical descriptions. And there is a difference between describing history and fabricating a story. A description of the horrors of the holocaust may be necessary in describing and hence in understanding history. Fabricating a story describing those same stories is not in the same category.
So though I appreciated Godawa’s instruction in discerning the worldviews inherent in film, I was less convinced that this is something we should or need to do. What Godawa set out to do, he did well. He showed that every film communicates a worldview and he gave tools to help discern those worldviews. Perhaps he should have just left the appendix out of the book. Now it would be too simple to say “Godawa is wrong” in teaching that we can watch films laden with negative elements. Rather, he left me unconvinced. I suspect the same will be true of many readers. This oversight aside, I found Hollywood Worldviews, with the exception of that appendix, a good and valuable read.
Comments (11) »
1. HeatherC
February 5, 2008
11:06 AM
Tim -
Thanks for your commentary; you made some good points.
But - I actually feel the appendix ought to have been expanded and incorporated into the main book. I know that profanity, sex and violence in films can be a big problem. But — so are they in society. And Christians being unaware of what these elements *mean* to society at large can be a big problem. (I said *can*…)
Christians most definitely ought not to watch films that contain sex, violence and profanity in order to titillate themselves — many Christians do this, and it is to their shame.
However — remember that filmmakers are first and foremost *artists* and artists in their art tend to “reflect and try to influence society” (as you quoted Godawa saying). They are often visionaries, tend to be misunderstood by many, and Christian artists especially.
Gene Veith, in his book “State of the arts : from Bezalel to Mapplethorpe” talks about the struggle that artists who are Christians have. They have their feet in both worlds, so to speak, and struggle to find acceptance for their vision in either world. They tend to be put into little boxes by those who don’t share their vision.
Like it or not, sex, violence and profanity are part of our society (they have always been, though at times they’ve been a little more “hidden” from the mainstream) — they are a sign of a people who live without God (see Romans 1).
Check out this blog — http://themoviegeist.wordpress.com/
This is the blog of a young (high school age) man who is passionate about film, and wants to make films (he is working on at least one now). In the meantime, he reads (Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Francis Schaeffer, etc.) and sees films and comments on them. His parents usually accompany him to films, and much discussion happens before and after. This young man himself would (and does) say that not all Christians ought to see the films he does - but some should. We need to be “in the world” and seek to understand and build bridges. We can be “in the world and not of it”, right?
It’s a fine line, but so is much of the walk of faith….
2. Daryl
February 5, 2008
11:18 AM
“However — remember that filmmakers are first and foremost artists…”
That reminds me of a friend who was a genetic research scientist. He expressed his frustration with those scientists (the apparent majority) who would say that they were scientists after all, and not ethicists. Using that to defend science that would lead inevitably to exploitation, rather than trying to establish some parameters of the proper use and pursuit of knowledge.
I find this often to be the case in the “arts” community, as though “I’m an artist” justifies anything. If the possibility (or in this case, probability) of being misunderstood exists, then do art with an explanation, or do something else.
The existence of something never justifies it’s promulgation, regardless of the medium used.
Excellent article Tim.
3. Gordon Cheng
February 5, 2008
2:56 PM
Godawa seems to fall into a trap of equating words and pictures. In so doing he ignores the power of pictures and the fact that pictures and words communicate in different ways. It is for good reason, I am sure, that God chose to communicate through a written rather than a visual Scripture. Equating “he knew her and she conceived and bore a son” with a steamy and passionate scene on the big screen is irrational.
Indeed.
Daryl, well said. The defence “I’m an artist” covers a multitude of sins in a figleafy sort of a way.
The earliest discussion of culture in the Bible, as far as I can work it out, is in Genesis 4:19-24, where Jubal and Tubal-Cain are identified as the fathers of art and culture. Their artistic ability has very little redemptive value either within their immediate family or beyond, as their dad’s words in verses 23-24 show:
Gen. 4:23 Lamech said to his wives:
“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say:
I have killed a man for wounding me,
a young man for striking me.
If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold,
then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.”
eek!
4. Rodney
February 5, 2008
3:06 PM
Thank you Tim for your comments. I appreciate your discernment in noticing how the author of this book glossed over the issue of what movies to watch based on content. There is no doubt that we should consider the worldview promoted by the film, but I believe we must also consider means by which the producer/director conveys this worldview.
A good book I read on this topic is Worldly Amusements by Wayne Wilson. Written from the perspective of a person who enjoys watching movies, he demonstrates how truly loving our neighbor and hating sin will cause us to be concerned with both the message and the content. This may limit our entertainment choices, but it that really so bad?
5. Daryl
February 5, 2008
3:08 PM
Just a word of clarification:
I’m not trying to make artists out to be the subversive problem children of the world…I have a 7 year old son who appears to be headed in some artistic direction, time will tell exactly what direction that will be.
What I am saying is that we need to be careful to use statements like “I’m an artist” or “I’m a scientist” or “I’m a pile of purple goo” as bits of information that may help others understand our perspectives, rather than as a permission slip to avoid those nasty encumbrances of civility and propriety that the regular non-artistic, non-scientific, non-gooey masses must deal with.
I just got the feeling that Heather was leaning dangerously close to the latter, rather than the former…
6. Paul K
February 5, 2008
4:25 PM
Why are there films to watch? I believe films are a subcategory of storytelling - a trait unique to our species, which enables us to learn vicariously through the experiences of others. No other species was given this ability.
Why sex, violence, and obscene language in films? The language could be part of a film which depicts the Present Evil Age in order to glorify life in it. A Christian has no need to see that kind of film; the Christian is no longer lost. Or the film could be a story of the rescue and redemption of an individual from the Enemy’s camp by a breakthrough of the Kingdom of God. Christians could be encouraged by the story and gain wisdom. It is always good to see a story of someone being “found”.
The Evil Age may be depicted either to attract or repel the viewer. However, a filmmaker can never know which way every viewer will respond to his depiction, so I think a Christian filmmaker should err on the side of less details rather than more.
7. Martin James
February 5, 2008
5:58 PM
“His justification is one I’ve seen countless times…”
He has to hold to this position. It’s his way of taking the batteries out of his conscience.
8. Jared
February 5, 2008
8:01 PM
It is for good reason, I am sure, that God chose to communicate through a written rather than a visual Scripture.
True, up to a point, though much of His revelation was a little bit visual. Lots of stuff in the Old Testament that might count as visual communication. The whole sacrificial system. Various manifestations of the power of God that might have been visible to those present. And then there’s the incarnation. Not exactly a written means of communication. The crucifixion. If I understand it correctly, it probably involved some violence. Not to mention nudity. At any rate, sort of visual.
This doesn’t, of course, justify running out and watching films larded with gratuitous violence and obscenity. But honest filmmaking isn’t going to be all puppies and rainbows.
Of course we could just stay home and read Genesis 4 and discover that being a musician won’t make our father virtuous. Thus, culture is suspect. Or something like that.
Fire away.
9. Ian Clary
February 6, 2008
8:57 AM
Hey Tim,
Thanks for reviewing this book, I really enjoyed reading it a few years ago. It’s great for Christians to have a manual that helps us evaluate this important aspect of the culture.
However, I do want to take issue with a couple of your points. The first is to offer a possible explanation as to why he relegated the issues of sex, violence and profanity to the appendix. It strikes me that the point of the book is to evaluate worldviews in movies, not the ethics of watching movies. He could very well have left the appendix out and it would not have made much of a difference.
In relation, this probably also explains why he was not trying to offer a defence or recommendation for Christians watching movies. The point is to help those of us who do watch movies evaluate the worldviews that underly them. Maybe Godawa could write a book on why Christians should watch movies to evaluate culture and another one on the ethical questions involved in watching movies. But it strikes me that the thesis of Hollywood Worldviews stands apart from that.
Thanks again for the great review!
10. KB
February 6, 2008
6:26 PM
“He seems usually to draw the line not with certain acts or with a certain level of immortality, but rather with good or bad filmmaking and storytelling.”
I read this book a few years back, and your comment nailed what I thought the author’s worldview seems to communicate.
11. Ben James
February 9, 2008
1:10 AM
I feel like this is kind of obvious, but seems to never come up. But why do we immediately place Sex, Violence and Profanity in the same category when it comes to movies?
I have no intent to comment on Profanity at this point. But turning to Sex & Violence, do we really treat them the same?
Violence is the result of sin, true. But it may be just (as opposed to good) or unjust. It may be necessary or unnecessary. RIghtous or unrighteous. It may be sin, or it may have been obedience to God or the government. When just violence is employed—whether specifically ordained by God in the Old Testament, or a usage of violence by the governing authorities consistent with the principles of protecting its citizens and “bearing the sword” as “the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Ro. 13:4) — it is always a public event. Just or righteous, violence, whether it is war or an execution, is always a public event in that it is witnessed by someone other than the party conducting the violent act, and the recipient of the violent act. This obviously excludes personal vengeance from the realm of just violence. I believe this is consistent with Jesus’ NT teaching (“eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth”), that chastised not retributive justice or capitol punishment, but personal (and often private) acts of violence not ordained by God or the government. Conider Nu. 15: 36 “And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses.” In this instance, the act of violence was meant to be observed. This served to protect the nation’s holiness and as a reminder and a warning to others. De. 21:2 cites the reason for stoning the rebellious as “So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” Thus, the act of beholding others engaged in violence or even participating, is not necessarily sinful in itself, but in the right circumstance, righteous.
Let’s consider sex. Sex too can be either righteous or unrighteous. However, all righteous sex is a private act between husband and wife. When there are witnesses, spectators, other participants, not to mention unmarried partners, then that sex is clearly unrighteous or sinful. Thus if we are intentionally beholding others engaged in this act (the real thing, not a movie which will be discussed in a bit) then that act is sinful (On a side note, it may not be sinful for all parties, in the case that the couple engaging in righteous sex is not aware they are being observed. In this case, it would be the observer who was commiting the sinful act).
So where we are so far:
1) Righteous violence is a public act, usually meant to be observed.
2) RIghteous sex is a private act, meant to be shared between husband and wife.
We must keep these two things in mind when considering the morality of these two element in film.
There is a clear line between actual violence and violence that is portrayed in film wihout the intent to harm. While I do agree there clearly can be excessive violence, and anything that is glorifying the violent act, or that finds pleasure in it is clearly wrong. However seeing seeing historical events accuratly portrayed on screen that present the ugliness of war and violence, and the sobering truth of the affects of sin on the human race, without glorifying it, can be a powerful element in film and storytelling, that may be used to communicate a variety of worldviews depending on its use, including a biblical worldview (or at least a Judeo-Christian one if we’re lucky, we are talking about Hollywood!).
Now someone might raise a similar defense of sex in movies, citing that there too is a difference between actual sex and the sex portrayed in films. These people need to ask themselves (and the Holy Spirit) if it only becomes sin to watch people who are actually engaged in real sexual intercourse. “But really, they’re only nude from the waste up.” “The camera doesn’t actually show anything.” I would rather ask, “Even though I can’t see (fill in the blank) Are these actors themselves engaged in acts condemned by scripture?” “Are they uncovering the nakedness of someone other than their spouse?” “Was their modesty protected from the other actors or the people on set?” There are many other questions to ask, but this should suffice. If it is determined that the actors themselves were engaging in a sinful act while filming a particular scene, then they are in sin, even if it is not sexual intercourse.
Reflect on Eph. 5: 5-12. “For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.
If we have determined that in order to film the scene in question the actors necessarily engaged in a sinful act, then we ought to bear in mind the consequences of sexual immorality without Christ, “for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.” If it is even shameful to speak of someone’s sexual immorality done in private (“secret”) and this constitutes “becoming partners with them” and “taking part in the unfruitful works of darkness,” how much more is this true if these acts are no longer done in secret?
Again while I’m certainly not condoning the indiscriminate viewing of violence, there is clearly a difference between Violence and Sex in film. Whether the sex performed on film is real or not, explicit or not, if what is portrayed on screen required the actors to engage in sinful acts, then we are participating in their evil deeds when we support or watch such films. At the very least we are financing the very sins of the actors for which they will be judged.