Demons To Some; Angels To Others!

New at Reason: In the good old days, biblical pictures were a means of sneaking T&A into your local moviehouse. Mel Gibson seems more interested in sneaking B&D into the regional multiplex. But as Charles Paul Freund explains, Bible Snuff has a long and distinguished pedigree.

Comments

[Jean Bart]

"But there's a closely related dimension of Gibson's film that has so far received less attention, and which is at least as compelling: The movie is also a revival of medieval theatrical sadism."

This may or may not be true of the Church in the U.S.; but it is not the case in Latin America or certain parts of Europe (Italy and Spain particular).

Interesting article nonethless; I very much enjoyed it Charles. 🙂

[Quentin_Tarantino]

Why go all the way back to the Middle Ages? There are plenty of examples of gratuitous cruelty in modern entertainment. What will the patronizing sociologists of the future say about modern action films, horror films, video games, etc? I suppose they'll say that in the primitive cultures of the twenty-first century, popular entertainment was a reflection of the cruelty of technological warfare, or some such babble as that.

[Jean Bart]

BTW, at medieval festivals where the Church had plays about stories from the Bible, etc. the most popular invariably were those that concerned Satan or were licentious or violent in some way. 🙂 Humans never change. 🙂

[grylliade]

What will the patronizing sociologists of the future say about modern action films, horror films, video games, etc? I suppose they'll say that in the primitive cultures of the twenty-first century, popular entertainment was a reflection of the cruelty of technological warfare, or some such babble as that.

I'm guessing you're assuming Star Trek is our future. 😉

"We have moved beyond such things as violence and money. We have also moved beyond such trifles as rock music and any sort of popular culture. We all listen only to classical music composed six hundred years ago and read only literature that is almost a thousand years old. Even though none of us actually work, we apparently have no creativity whatsoever."

Anyways, on Gibson's film . . . I'm eagerly awaiting seeing it. I'm certain it will have much more meaning for a believing Christian, since it is after all a retelling of the central myth of Christianity (well, except for the resurrection, apparently). The violence and such . . . well, that's just the source material. Making a movie with only what modern Biblical criticism might think about the Gospels would be rather boring.

[dhex]

there are still old school style passion plays in the phillipines.

[thoreau]

It ain't just Biblical plays that were violent back then. Go watch Macbeth. Now imagine that when people die in Macbeth (i.e. every other scene or so) fake guts spill out on stage. Then listen carefully to the monologue on alcohol and erections. (Yes, it's in there, but a lot of actors gloss over it in their delivery so the full prurient implications aren't obvious.)

And they say modern entertainment is explicit? According to a trivia book I recently read, Macbeth was actually banned from the stage in England when it first came out. (Although that may have had something to do with the politically sensitive nature of plays where kings are killed....)

[Jim Walsh]

You mean it DIDN'T all start with Tarantino?!?

[Eric]

Charles,
That was an interesting article. I'm not so sure that "this tide of cruelty" has really turned, though. Much of what is on the movie screen (and, to a lesser extent, the TV) is just as, if not more, violent than anything depicted in medieval times.

[dhex]

who can imagine what will be lauded in 100 years?

and that's not even counting what's going to happen once video games begin to mature as a medium (i'm hoping i'm younger than 90 when this gets into full swing...i have my fingers crossed.)

[Shannon Love]

Eric,
"I'm not so sure that "this tide of cruelty" has really turned, though"

I don't think a lot of people understand how just habitually violent life was in pre-industrial age. Killing animals was an almost daily activity for most people. Household killed their own food animals; every woman new how to twist off a chickens head and men new how to slaughter large domestic animals and to hunt. People died not in hospitals but at home surrounded by their families. That sounds nice to modern ears but it meant that families had to watch their loved ones die excruciating and messy deaths.

I grew up in a rural area and I both hunted and slaughtered. I remember being surprised when I went off to college and realized that most of my college-mates had never killed anything other than insects. They had never had to watch a mammal bleed to death or to deal with the body.

Media or video game gore is not even close to the watching a real bullet tear through leaving flesh.

[Larry Edelstein]

I agree with Shannon; earlier times were routinely violent, and that's a bit opaque to most of us.

I've often felt that they were SO violent that they must have called into question the nature of man. Why would a natural race be born into such suffering?

The redemption of those troubled times - from shortly after the dawn of man until, let's say, the invention of septic procedures - is the ultimate vindication of modern society, and the counterargument to all the atavistic, back-to-nature, reactionary thinking that passes for philosophy among so many "radical" thinkers of all stripes today.

[Jean Bart]

Shannon,

"Media or video game gore is not even close to the watching a real bullet tear through leaving flesh."

Killing an animal is not the same as killing a human being; having done both, without a "bullet" and with one, well, I can say this. At least the experiences differed for me. Other people have said it was "no big deal." It always bothered me.

BTW, I doubt they would have viewed the killing of animals as "violent," and I am not quite sure why anyone today would either.

Anyway, I doubt the "violence" in this movie is any bloodier than any of Gibson's other recent films; Gibson appears to perfer gore and blood spewing about.

[Jean Bart]

I wonder when someone will actually make an important story from the "ancient" world such as the death of Socrates or the life of Cincinnatus.

[Glen]

I killed animals when I was young. Then I killed people. Now I can't stand to kill anything, and I don't like to watch the kinds of violence depicted in movies and on TV. I won't be attending Gibson's "snuff movie". Guess I'm a wimp.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Wait a second, Jean. I'm willing to believe your tale of ox-stunning fisticuffs against the guy who insulted your wife, but if you're going to start claiming you've killed people I need some specifics: Who, when, where, why, and under what circumstances? And if you were not acting in some official capacity as an agent of the state-which these days would qualify you for the presidency, by the way-did you do any time or are you in this country hiding out from Interpol?

[Jesus]

A Home Depot question...

Is it really possible to nail a grown man to a cross with only the bones in his hands to support his weight ?

I read someplace that the Romans placed the spike between the bones in the forearm.

jdog

[Jean Bart]

Tim Cavanaugh,

You might recall that France in the 1980s intevened in the war between Tchad and Libya; I killed a few Libyans there. You might also recall that in the first Gulf War France sent soldiers to fight there as well; I killed a few Iraqis there. I was not born in the U.S.; I cannot be an American President. Though if you were born in one of France's former territorial colonies, you could become President of France (I believe this is true of Clinton, he being bornin Arkansas - part of France's North American empire at one point). 🙂

[Critic]

Jesus, you should know!

[Jean Bart]

jesus,

There is some evidence of actual crucifixions with nails; but many scholars claim that most of the crucified were done so with ropes. Indeed, despite the large amounts of people crucified during ancients times (in the millions perhaps), there are very few artefacts which point to nails being used. Much of what is thought of as the "passion" procession is not even in the gospels; such as the sopping up of the blood by Mary (that comes from a 19th century "vision") or the apparent discussion between Pilate and his wife about his decision concerning Jesus (making Pilate an even more sympathetic figure than the gospel of John portrays him). So much for the "gospel accuracy."

[Jean Bart]

I meant the "passion" procession in the movie. 🙂

[Jean Bart]

Tim Cavanaugh,

You would be surprised how many "real world" missions are common for anyone in a remotely elite group of soldiers; its how governments fight wars today more and more (even being privatized, which is the more disturbing development that an executive can contract out armies without the knowledge of the legislative branch). But I digress. 🙂

[Douglas Fletcher]

I didn't see it mentioned in his posts but I recall that JB has said he was in the French Marines, which is when he would have been involved in all that. Is that so?

[dj of raleigh]

> Will it further desensitize some to intense violence, build a craving for other emotional experiences,

[Jean Bart]

Douglas Fletcher,

Try - Cooke, "With the French in Desert Storm: One Hundred Miles From Baghdad"

[SM]

Anybody else want to confess their human-killing exploits ?

[Jean Bart]

SM,

Its not particularly an "exploit." But as it bothers people, I will discontinue discussion of my military experiences from now on.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Doesn't bother me. Say whatever you want.

[SM]

I was only bothered by the paucity of mel gibson style graphics.
OK, shutting up now ...

[SPUR]

Did you know that if you get wicked high and play Jethro Tull's Passion Play over the Gibson film -- it works out perfectly? It is as it was.

[Jim Walsh]

Regarding the question of where to put the nails...

My brother, who did his undergraduate study at a college run by the Holy Cross order (an offshoot of the Jesuits) tells me crucifixion victims were nailed through the wrists. It wouldn't work if they put the nails through the palms.

[Quentin_Tarantino]

Why compare Gibson's movie with medieval entertainment? Why not compare it with the simulated gore of modern movies and video games? I imagine that the reason for using medieval analogies is that the author wants to insult Gibson. Nowadays, it's not considered a compliment to be compared to people in the Middle Ages. So if you want to insult someone's movie, better to compare it to medieval dramatizations of saints' lives than to compare it to a modern horror film.

If the author had said, "Gibson's movie is so bloody, it reminds me of [name of modern splatter pic]," then the sophisticated *Reason* reader wouldn't have been sufficiently shocked. But if the author says that Gibson's movie is like a medieval religious play, then the reader is supposed to be duly outraged at Gibson.

If our descandants are as hypocritical as we are, they will no doubt adopt the same posture of outrage at our horror movies that we adopt toward medieval plays. After denouncing us, our descendants will then go on to the holodeck to watch 3-D Romulan snuff films.

[Jean Bart]

Quentin,

Who was outraged? And to be blunt, there is nothing more apt than the comparison, nor is there anything wrong with the criticizing the near pornographic violence this film portrays. Indeed, what is so interesting is that the violence is so overblown as to demonstrate that this really is less of a "true" account than Gibson's own editorializing and glossing. Which of course makes his film open to a range of other criticisms.

[MALAK]

Jean Bart: One should never "shut up" about one's service to country. I omit God and Crown in deference to your citizenship in a republic, and your oft-stated atheism. Service to one's country is creditable, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a philistine. Experience makes the man. Prattle on.

[beanie]

SPUR,

``Do you still see me even here?''...

I can't wait to do just that, if for no other reason than to hear that album again!

[MALAK]

Jennifer: some refutations; The Catholic church does not frown on sex, only that sex which occurs outside marriage. As for being immoral to do anything that creates people: WTF? What about go forth and multiply, the proscription against contraception . . . ? I will allow for the possibilty that I missed your joke but, c'mon.

[Jennifer]

MALAK-
Even in marriage, Catholicism only allows sex for procreation only. However, quoting St. Paul, "It is better to marry than to burn [in hell.]" Translation: truly moral people never, ever have sex (except with altar boys, heh heh heh) but if you are sleazy enough to want sex, then at least get married first so it's not TOO offensive in the eyes of God.

Okay, my "creating people" joke didn't work, but basically the rule is this: sex is BAD, but violence is okay. Beat the nonbelievers, but for God's sake don't beat off!

So ignore my joke. My question remains: has anyone studied the connection between sexual repression and violence, especially in regards to religion?

And here's an amusing tidbit about Catholicism: in grad school, my Medieval Lit professor (a spookily brilliant man and cynical ex-Jesuit) told us that it was not uncommon in those days to have paintings of Jesus with an erection, in order to demonstrate that Jesus, while God, was also a man. I pointed out that this presented a theological problem: Medieval Catholics taught that all unmarried sexual desire was sinful. Jesus never married, and supposedly was without sin, which means he never had sexual desire. Thus, unless Jesus had morning wood, he was just as sinful and putrid as anyone else.

So here's another question: if Jesus died for my sins, who died for his?

[Quentin_Tarantino]

"comparing individual leaders with cultures which formented for more than a thousand years is kinda off the mark in scale. plus the communists were very much into executing 'deviants.'"

Let me try again.

We are asked to believe that Christianity leads to violence because it "represses" sexual impulses. To test that hypothesis, we need to look at situations where there is less sexual "repression" and see if the rate of violence goes down. If not, then why not? Do we have to abandon the hypothesis or revise it?

[MALAK]

I do not know if such studies have been done. But as to your (ex)Jesuit and his paintings tale, thepainings themselves are meant to convey an abstract idea (i.e. the Holy Trinity), not the fact that Jesus was good to go sexually. But that is my interpretation, and far be it from me to quibble with a Jesuit.

[Jennifer]

Quentin-

I do not claim that Xianity or religion in general causes violence; I am suggesting that human nature has intrinsically violent aspects and intrinsically sexual aspects, and if the sex part gets repressed then that energy escapes through the violence valve. But it would be interesting to compare, say, the rates of violence in sexually open societies like Sweden or the Netherlands, versus violence in sexually repressed societies like the various countries currently run by theocracies where sexual freedom and expression is verboten.

Do I really need to tell you the results?

[Quentin_Tarantino]

Jennifer,

That would certainly be an interesting study. It would be important to have a certain degree of rigor, so that if we find a lot of violence in (say) Pakistan, or Amish country, or in other "repressed" areas, we won't automatically assume that the violence is due to the repression, but will check to see if there is some other cause (eg, clan rivalry in Pakistan, perhaps, or the inherent dangers of barn-raising, in the case of Amish country).

In assessing the levels of violence in "sexually open" Sweden and the Netherlands, would abortion and euthanasia count as violence? If they did, then the violence rate would probably be higher than if it wasn't counted.

Doesn't the United States count as a "sexually open" society? Doesn't it have a high rate of violence? Are the perpetrators of this violence frustrated celibate men?

[Quentin_Tarantino]

"has anyone studied the connection between sexual repression and violence, especially in regards to religion?"

Such a study would have to consider counterexamples, like Mao Tse-Tung, a sexually "liberated" guy if there ever was one. His atheism and his uninhibited, "it's good to be the king" approach to sexuality didn't stop him from preaching and practicing violence.

When traditionally Christian countries became Communist, society didn't become less violent, which is what one would expect if Christian "repression" promoted violence. As Christianity was repressed, did violence go down?

On a less bloodthirsty level than the communists, we have Bill Clinton. Given his non-repressed attitude to sex, one would think that Clinton would have shunned violence. And so he did, if you mean he didn't want to join the armed forces. But he was happy to send the U. S. armed forces into foreign countries as armed missionaries of Americanism. The way he bombed the Serbs, you would think Clinton was deeply repressed.

[dhex]

comparing individual leaders with cultures which formented for more than a thousand years is kinda off the mark in scale. plus the communists were very much into executing "deviants."

and clinton was deeply repressed - he seemed to believe he'd had no sexual contact with "that woman." 🙂

part of the goodies of being an able con man (a high priest, a pope, a politician, community leader, etc) is being able to fuck your followers nubile daughters (or sons) and generally live the life in private that you legislate against in public. think back to gore and bush fighting over who was going to get to imprison more poor drug users...

obviously i think there's been some severely negative repercussions from the western tradition's overwhelmingly negative approach to the human body and human sexuality in general. sadly, moving in the opposite direction doesn't necessarily teach responsibility either, but i would think most of us would agree tis better for the populace to fuck up on its own than be forbidden from fucking up by it's government.

[Jennifer]

Dhex--

Marvelously put! Or, to say it another way: I'd rather have a President with a sex life of his own than a President who wants to regulate mine.

[Jennifer]

I don't mean this to sound like a knee-jerk insult toward religious folk, but has anyone studied a possible link between religious violence and religious sexual frustration? The violent medieval miracle and morality plays were products of a Catholic (anti-sex) culture; I haven't heard much about mainstream Protestant institutionalized masochism. Even the symbols are different--Catholics have crucifixes with detailed depictions of Jesus' agony; Protestants have nice sterile crosses without tortured male bodies on them. Meanwhile, in Muslim countries nowadays you get public spectacles of beheading, hand amputation et al; is it coincidence that strict sexual segregation must make those poor fools hornier than a pack of rhinos? And finally Mel Gibson, a fundamentalist Catholic who can't fuck without making a baby, which must be disastrous on the libido. I wonder if all this religious violence is just the sublimated sex drive--it's immoral to do anything that creates people, so let's destroy them instead.