# The Cinema regarded as sin?



## Rufus (Feb 13, 2012)

I've come across the notion (historically) of the cinema being sinful. Although I've found few if any Puritanboard members having problems with watching movies. I was wondering why it was regarded as sinful, why it isn't, and how the change in opinion regarding it happened?


----------



## Afterthought (Feb 13, 2012)

I was going to post a thread soon on the same subject! Mainly, I was planning on seeking clarification. It seems to me (and this is part of what I wanted clarified) the main arguments against movie watching tend to be (though not necessarily all from the same source) (1) drama is sinful in some way (which is usually clarified to people acting out sin being sinful), (2) it being sinful to behold sin (and I think that is usually qualified to beholding sin as recreation or entertainment), and (3) it is a complete waste of a Christian's time. Other old arguments include all sorts of things which strike me as strange but make me wonder whether it's just because I live in a different time from them. Examples of such include that all sorts of unbelievers and people one would not wish to associate with go to the theater so the Christian should avoid it and that a Christian could not seriously ask God's blessing on their theater watching and that a Christian cannot be in a mind to pray after going to the theater. I also remember an argument that stated most dramatic productions were/are so corrupt so all should be avoided in order to avoid the "appearance of evil."

The main arguments for theater watching being fine is that the arguments against theater watching end up in absurdity--usually by a comparison with (1) what Scripture portrays (e.g., portraying fiction, drama, and evil), (2) the evil portrayed in fiction, raising the question of whether fiction of any kind is allowable--even such things as Pilgrim's Progress or some kinds of religious poetry, (3) movies that portray evil in an appropriate manner, (4) people doing drama in other things such as in reading Scripture, books to their kids, or singing even, and (5) what to do with various literature that currently permeates our education system (which is often composed of things that portray evil and portray it wrongfully). Which arguments apply depend on how the other person argues against stage plays. For example, if the position is argued only on the basis of the portrayal of evil, it can be reasonably countered that Scripture is the only thing that can portray evil with the proper perspective, and one would not have to worry about arguing that imitating evil as an actor is evil, so (1) in this paragraph wouldn't apply.

Personally, I often wonder what can be objectively considered a complete waste of time; surely watching a good movie is no more a waste of time than reading some piece of literature or work of a pagan philosopher. I also wonder what would be done about cartoons and animations which involve no drama nor actors imitating evil. Although having said all that, I suppose it's fair to mention that I do have sympathies with the "no movie" view and am open to change.

Here's one work by Samuel Miller on the stage that I've been referred to on more than one occasion. I guess I'll be watching this thread!


----------



## Philip (Feb 13, 2012)

I do not consider watching good films a waste of time any more than I consider reading _Anna Karenina_ a waste of time.


----------



## J. Dean (Feb 13, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I do not consider watching good films a waste of time any more than I consider reading _Anna Karenina_ a waste of time.



Agreed. It's too easy (and in my opinion lazy) to simply slap a carte blanche label of "evil" on a medium, rather than exercising discernment as to the particulars found within that medium.

Same thing with music: you need to take each song/artist on a case by case basis. There is heavy music I love to listen to, and country/pop that I won't touch with a ten foot pole, based on what's being promoted in the song.


----------



## JML (Feb 13, 2012)

Afterthought said:


> (1) drama is sinful in some way (which is usually clarified to people acting out sin being sinful), (2) it being sinful to behold sin (and I think that is usually qualified to beholding sin as recreation or entertainment), and (3) it is a complete waste of a Christian's time.



I don't watch a lot of movies but it is not because of #1 or #3, although #3 could be true if it was an inordinate amount. However, #2 is for the most part why I don't watch hardly any movies. There are not a lot of modern movies that don't glorify sin, so as a result I don't watch many. I don't think there is anything inherently sinful about the concept of movies or TV for that matter but due to content, I don't get to enjoy hardly any, which is a shame.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 13, 2012)

We've had a number of discussions on this and related topics. Here's one of them, which also contains links to others:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f25/holiness-world-culture-arts-revisited-63555/#post819084


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 13, 2012)

There is no biblical rule that requires abstinence from "cinema."

There are, however, biblical principles and commandments that apply to movie going as to many areas of life.

There is much pop culture worldly garbage marketed as entertainment that a Christian ought abstain from.

Is the content geared toward profanity? blasphemy? mockery of what is good? glorification of what is evil? 

Is spending the money on it good stewardship?

Is spending the time attending, talking and thinking about the movie good stewardship of time?

One aspect of sanctification will be less tolerance of the profane, more care in spending money, more concern about idleness, less concern about amusing oneself, and more concern about what is true, good and pure.


----------



## Andres (Feb 13, 2012)

I thought another one of the Puritan's reasoning for abstaining from theatre was that acting was in some way violating the 9th commandment. Perhaps I'm way off on this one and I welcome correction.


----------



## JML (Feb 13, 2012)

Andres said:


> I thought another one of the Puritan's reasoning for abstaining from cinema was that acting was in some way violating the 9th commandment. Perhaps I'm way off on this one and I welcome correction.



No. You are correct. Several Puritans saw acting as bearing false witness since people were acting like someone or something they were not.


----------



## Edward (Feb 14, 2012)

Andres said:


> I thought another one of the Puritan's reasoning for abstaining from cinema was that acting was in some way violating the 9th commandment. Perhaps I'm way off on this one and I welcome correction.



I thought that the Puritans abstained from cinema because it hadn't been invented yet.


----------



## J. Dean (Feb 14, 2012)

Edward said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > I thought another one of the Puritan's reasoning for abstaining from cinema was that acting was in some way violating the 9th commandment. Perhaps I'm way off on this one and I welcome correction.
> ...



I think that's referring to the theatre rather than the cinema. The arguments I had always heard against the theatre were more about the ideas and philosophies espoused in the writing, and also that theatre was entering the church.

As for the ninth commandment application, that seems to be stretching it a bit far. That's like saying a person is lying because they use hyperbole in their speech (which in effect would be calling Jesus a liar, btw). Acting is entertainment with the audience knowing full well that the person on stage is portraying a different persona for the sake of amusement. It's not like the actor is trying to deceive an unwitting audience who has no idea what's going on.


----------



## Christopher88 (Feb 14, 2012)

As for it being a waste of a Christians time, allow me to play another role here. 
Is secular work a waste of a Christians time? Is learning from a liberal arts university a waste of time? 

Now we can all go live in a Christian monastery, (which don't get me wrong, sounds nice at points I know in my life) but is that what Christ desired in His prayer for us to stay in the world? 

Our duty as Christians is to bring glory to God and enjoy Him forever. So lets take movies, does watching a "good" movie help me to enjoy God? I would say yes. No it may not have much theology (Thou you could plug some into a movie) but it is the mind in action, the imagination of CREATION at work. The Arts bring about good in humanity. 

I truly believe a fine appreciation of arts is not sinful so long as thou arts are not going against one of God's commands. IE movies with affairs and out right murder may be on the questionable list to watch. However not all the arts are sinful. 

I have to get ready for the day, but wanted to throw some thought in the pit before I left.

Please note I am questioning these same things; so I am not taking a full public stance on any position at this time other than I do appreciate the arts.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 14, 2012)

A few thoughts in considering this topic biblically, and more deeply.



Sonny said:


> As for it being a waste of a Christians time, allow me to play another role here.
> Are we a nation that seeks too much entertainment and amusement from the standpoint of our life calling as believers? Are families, work, charity being neglected? Or is the balance about right?
> 
> 
> ...



In a sense, it is fair to say, God made all things to be enjoyed, including art, and cinema.

But how do we do that and separate ourselves from evil purveyed through it?

That's the question.

And how much do we rationalize tolerating evil in it in order to enjoy it's good?


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 14, 2012)

I brought something like this up on another forum in regard to the film "Pulp Fiction." To my thinking this film is an example of the decadence of our society. Aside from the vulgarity and profanity, which is ubiquitous, there is homosexual sodomy and numerous scenes of mayhem. The killers are portrayed as charismatic characters who are attractive to "the world." A man is accidentally shot in an automobile when it hits a bump and this incident is portrayed as comic relief, this scene invariably brings laughter from the audience. I've read that a society can be judged by its art. If stuff like this is not emblematic of a sick society what is ? There was a time when I enjoyed the film BTW. I wouldn't watch it today. your mileage may vary.

OTOH, I think of Shakespeare and with the exception of the filthy language of our day, there are some parallels in terms of violence. I suppose these stories do portray fallen man in a relatively accurate depiction of what he is capable of. Than there are films that are uplifting, such as, The Sound Of Music, Lilies Of The Field and that sort. Isn't it true that after we become Christians we only then begin to see the disparaging way that Hollywood portrays Christians ? I think of films such as "Zulu", an oldie that most may not remember, but there are many more examples. At my age (63) having spent the majority of my life 'walking according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air', putting off 'the old man' and putting on the new, I now would sooner devote my free time to focusing on things above. What communion has light with darkness. "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing."


----------



## J. Dean (Feb 14, 2012)

Let me add to JimmyH's sentiment: while I certainly do not believe that the cinema in and of itself is sin, I find that there are very few movies worth watching at all.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 14, 2012)

I often times become uncomfortable with these sorts of discussions because they at least presuposse an overarching rule for all Christians. But this subject like so many is not so simple. What would be over the line for one person may not be so for another. Being a recovering ex-p0rn addict I am much more careful about what I watch or listen to. But I would never really make it a rule for everyone not to watch or listen to something that is debatable. "God alone is Lord of conscience", that has to mean something after all.


----------



## Philip (Feb 14, 2012)

Sonny said:


> IE movies with affairs and out right murder may be on the questionable list to watch.



So much for _Sherlock Holmes_ and any film adaptation of the _Father Brown_ stories. Not to mention _Anna Karenina_.


----------



## jayce475 (Feb 14, 2012)

Should not we consider the person watching the film and his conscience? Different people may have entirely different spiritual experiences in watching the same film, with some revelling in the sin portrayed and taking delight in it (therefore sinning and possibly being stumbled by the film) and others being edified by it. But personally, reasons 2 and 3 are aplenty for me not to be interested in movies and many other forms of entertainment.


----------



## JML (Feb 14, 2012)

> Dear Friends,
> 
> Can either/both of you point me to some material suggesting that this was the reason for their position on cinema? I would like to read their logic on the matter. False witness has to do with deception and, clearly, if anyone was going to a play, they were not being deceived by these people pretending to be a character; rather, they were "putting on a face" to entertain others. I would venture to say that the reason we should, as the Larger Catechism (139), stay away from some/most "stage plays," theatre, and cinema, insofar that they would be "lascivious." This same principle applies to "songs, books, pictures," and "dancing" as well. Of course, consistently applying this would likely result in the far whittling down of most of our consumption of media, and drive us back to more time in wholesome recreations as well as closet duties of Word and prayer.



I am not near my library right now but if I remember correctly this was Perkin's view. I will try to look later when I get a chance.


----------



## Andres (Feb 14, 2012)

Edward said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > I thought another one of the Puritan's reasoning for abstaining from cinema was that acting was in some way violating the 9th commandment. Perhaps I'm way off on this one and I welcome correction.
> ...



Oops! Yes, I meant theater rather than cinema. Thanks.

---------- Post added at 09:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 AM ----------




> Dear Friends,
> 
> Can either/both of you point me to some material suggesting that this was the reason for their position on cinema? I would like to read their logic on the matter.



I believe the place I read this was here on the PB sometime in past threads. If it's on the PuritanBoard it's fact right? 

---------- Post added at 09:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 AM ----------

Here's the thread I recalled where a couple people mention the Puritans aversion to theater due to the 9th commandment. You are correct though, in that no one really provides a source, so as I mentioned in my earlier post, I welcome correction.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 14, 2012)

jayce475 said:


> Should not we consider the person watching the film and his conscience? Different people may have entirely different spiritual experiences in watching the same film, with some revelling in the sin portrayed and taking delight in it (therefore sinning and possibly being stumbled by the film) and others being edified by it. But personally, reasons 2 and 3 are aplenty for me not to be interested in movies and many other forms of entertainment.



I would say yes. Does watching _Transformers_ bother your spirit? Do you feel God convicting you when watching it? Than you should probably stop watching it but you should not go on a crusade in your church to make everyone stop watching it. Now if a movie that has nudity and strong sexual content as its focus does not bother you than you should probably rethink your closeness to God. This is obviously a very grey area which is why we should be concerned with ourselfs and not rules for everybody.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 14, 2012)

William Prynne's _Histriomastix_, published in the early 1630s and proscribed by Archbishop Laud, is probably the ultimate Puritan attack on the theatre, holidays like Christmas, and the like. Yes, the objections to the theatre were many and varied, including the ninth commandment issue, men dressing in women's clothing, the lascivious nature of much of it (the songs especially) and so forth. It should also be noted that it is under the seventh commandment that the Westminster Larger Catechism forbids "lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays."

In the early church, the pagan theatre was forbidden by the fathers because the multi-day pageants were the scene of endless impurities. The Roman church co-opted much of this for its own use in the middle ages, hence the mystery plays. To the Puritans, this, together with Christianized holidays and other customs, was to be rejected. 

Coming down as late as the nineteenth century, someone as moderate as Charles Hodge refused to go to the theatre on his great European trip, though given many opportunities. Many were mortified that President Lincoln, who was a pew-holder and regular attender (though not a member) at New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, was shot in a theatre. He was removed to a house across the street in no small measure because it was said that he must not be allowed to die on the floor of a theatre.

A few additional historical matters answering to Br. Joshua's and other's questions.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 14, 2012)

Alan D. Strange said:


> William Prynne's _Histriomastix_, published in the early 1630s and proscribed by Archbishop Laud, is probably the ultimate Puritan attack on the theatre, holidays like Christmas, and the like. Yes, the objections to the theatre were many and varied, including the ninth commandment issue, men dressing in women's clothing, the lascivious nature of much of it (the songs especially) and so forth. It should also be noted that it is under the seventh commandment that the Westminster Larger Catechism forbids "lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays."
> 
> In the early church, the pagan theatre was forbidden by the fathers because the multi-day pageants were the scene of endless impurities. The Roman church co-opted much of this for its own use in the middle ages, hence the mystery plays. To the Puritans, this, together with Christianized holidays and other customs, was to be rejected.
> 
> ...



Very interesting. Thank you for sharing. But does not a list of "inductive problems" presuposse that we can correct these errors and still be able to go to the cinema? I mean if you say that man dressing as women are essential to cinema and this is a sin, therefore we should not go to the cinema. That is sound logic but the answer is simple, don't go to cinema that has men dressing as women. Because men dressing as women is not in fact essential to cinema.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 14, 2012)

Alan D. Strange said:


> In the early church, the pagan theatre was forbidden by the fathers because the multi-day pageants were the scene of endless impurities.



Dr. Strange, was the (pagan) religious nature of many of the plays not also a consideration? In other words, in addition to the mardi-gras atmosphere surrounding many pagan recreations, was the religious content of a lot of the plays also deemed offensive?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 14, 2012)

James:

For some reason, you seem to think that I was arguing something in my reply (that you quote). I was not. 

The question had been raised about the Puritan's ninth commandment objections to the theatre. There is an exhaustive treatment of this in Prynne. The book is over a thousand pages. One of the objections was men dressing in women's clothing: at the time, women were not permitted in such a setting and all portrayals of women were by men dressed as such. I was simply noting that this, along with other seventh and ninth commandment objections, was part of the Puritan opposition to the theatre.

My comment, it seemed rather obvious to me, was simply to give some historical background. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 14, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Alan D. Strange said:
> 
> 
> > In the early church, the pagan theatre was forbidden by the fathers because the multi-day pageants were the scene of endless impurities.
> ...



To better understand your question. Are you asking this because you are attemtping to distinguish between cinema used to promote formally speaking a differeing religous perspective, Buddhist plays for instance, and more seculer examples like some modern cinema? Or are you asking this because you are trying to imply that all cinema is formally religous and ought to be avoided? I am not saying that you are saying either one, only trying to understand your question better.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 14, 2012)

Alan D. Strange said:


> James:
> 
> For some reason, you seem to think that I was arguing something in my reply (that you quote). I was not.
> 
> ...



That makes more sense, sorry for misunderstanding. So, if I understand you correctly, you are giving historical clarification and not moral prescription?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 14, 2012)

Ruben:

Christians were not to go the games, circuses, theatre, and so forth both for content and environment. The latter, however, was often so debauched that it was more the focus than the content (one would have to go there and be a part of the scene before the content was relevant). One of the ways in which Christians were seen to be different from their pagan neighbors was that they did not attend such, something quite different from tdoay: one never need leave one's home to partake of the content of any number of things, something which is both a convenience and a horror (depending on what is being consumed).

Peace,
Alan


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 14, 2012)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Ruben:
> 
> Christians were not to go the games, circuses, theatre, and so forth both for content and environment. The latter, however, was often so debauched that it was more the focus than the content (one would have to go there and be a part of the scene before the content was relevant). One of the ways in which Christians were seen to be different from their pagan neighbors was that they did not attend such, something quite different from tdoay: one never need leave one's home to partake of the content of any number of things, something which is both a convenience and a horror (depending on what is being consumed).
> 
> ...



Although not directed at me your response answers my last question. So again thank for sharing this very illuminating historical context.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 14, 2012)

James:

I will make something beyond a historical observation here. 

I think that it's important for us to understand our Christian forefathers on their own terms and to think about what they may have to teach us. Does their opposition to theatre have anything to teach us? I think so and I think that we should seek to understand them before simply dismissing them and rushing to defend our own practices. Theatre (and now film) presents a spectacle that threatens to compete with the relatively more tame administration of the means of grace.

Let me be clear: I do not as a matter of principle oppose theatre and cinema. I can quite enjoy it rightly used. I enjoy opera, for example, something opposed by our earlier fathers. But I understand their opposition and I seek to engage wisely. Frankly, both the amount of time we spend watching and the content of what we watch needs, in my view, to be questioned by us far more than it customarily is. Christians spend a great deal of time watching what is worth very little, if not to say detrimental, and we are quick to defend it and not let it be questioned.

I believe that we live in a time in which the spiritual temperature of the church, as a whole, is at a rather low level. We can watch any number of things for endless hours, but let our worship service exceed its alloted time and the complaints roll in. Sunday services for the Puritans in colonial New England, for instance, were about three hours morning and afternoon. This included a sermon of an hour or so, but also a main pastoral prayer of about the same length. We have no stomach for such anymore. What am I saying? Before we rush to criticize the Puritans, we have more than enough to criticize about ourselves. We have little taste for the Word, its preaching, prayer, the sacraments, etc. This may seem to be off-topic but I do not at all think so.

I am not condemning the theatre and film. It does seem, however, that Christians have so come to embrace these that we have more taste for these than the public, private and secret uses of the means of grace.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 14, 2012)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I will make something beyond a historical observation here.
> 
> I think that it's important for us to understand our Christian forefathers on their own terms and to think about what they may have to teach us. Does their opposition to theatre have anything to teach us? I think so and I think that we should seek to understand them before simply dismissing them and rushing to defend our own practices. Theatre (and now film) presents a spectacle that threatens to compete with the relatively more tame administration of the means of grace.
> 
> ...



I completly agree. You make excellent points and provide very fascinating historical perspectives to these ideas that should inform and guide our articulation of these ideas today. I prefer to make a distinction between historical setting and moral prescription, even though we cannot completly seperate these things. This distinction in my mind best avoids misunderstanding. I appreciate your responses, don't get me wrong. I was just trying to better understand your thoughts through my questions.


----------



## Rufus (Feb 14, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Sonny said:
> 
> 
> > IE movies with affairs and out right murder may be on the questionable list to watch.
> ...



Seeing as adultery and murder are part of human reality I can't see a problem with them being portrayed in a negative way. The world isn't as bright and cheery as some, especially Christians (who believe the world is corrupt) make it out to be.

Does anybody here object to watching films (I'm guessing very few because of the popularity of Weston's recent thread on movies)?


----------



## JML (Feb 14, 2012)

Rufus said:


> Does anybody here object to watching films



I doubt anybody here objects to watching films as a whole. Our personal consciences and views on what is sinful or not seem to vary widely making what each person is willing to watch differ greatly.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 14, 2012)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Ruben:
> 
> Christians were not to go the games, circuses, theatre, and so forth both for content and environment. The latter, however, was often so debauched that it was more the focus than the content (one would have to go there and be a part of the scene before the content was relevant). One of the ways in which Christians were seen to be different from their pagan neighbors was that they did not attend such, something quite different from tdoay: one never need leave one's home to partake of the content of any number of things, something which is both a convenience and a horror (depending on what is being consumed).
> 
> ...



Thanks, Dr. Strange! I thought I remembered some remarks in _The City of God_ that led me to think that removing the hedonistic accoutrements wouldn't necessarily have rendered the theater acceptable; and of course it's obvious on a reading of the Greek dramatists (since almost no one has an opportunity to see a performance of them) that these are religious texts
I am glad for your valuable input on the matter, and I especially enjoyed your words about appreciating our ancestors on their own terms. That seems to me like one of the most enjoyable, as well as one of the most profitable exercises associated with delving into the past.

Incidentally, I am authorized to invite you to dinner if you are ever in Indianapolis - and you might be interested to know that I have a rather rare recording of Gianna d'Angelo singing a few pieces from Rigoletto; her performance is quite a revelation.


----------



## Afterthought (Feb 14, 2012)

Thanks, Dr. Strange! I've sometimes heard it argued that "lascivious stage plays" in the Westminster Larger Catechism intended to refer to all stage plays (the "lasciviousness" would then be a broader term including all sorts of moral filth, not just "heart adultery"). They would say that the term "lasicivious [X]" meant different things depending on what went in the X; thus, there could be no non-lascivious stage plays but there could be non-lascivious pictures. Is there any basis to that claim (if you don't mind answering?)? I'll probably also ask a modern proponent of this view that question too (when I have more time), but it would be nice to hear the other side of the issue too.



Rufus said:


> Does anybody here object to watching films (I'm guessing very few because of the popularity of Weston's recent thread on movies)?


Gathering from past PB threads, there used to be some, and I'm sure there are still some around. However, I have noticed that modern proponents of this view usually clarify that they aren't against the medium of "filming" and so would be fine with things like documentaries, provided it had no portrayal of evil (the definition of "evil" depending on how the proponent argued it) or had no drama, depending on how they initially argued against movies.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 14, 2012)

Yes, Ruben, Augustine does a magnificent job deconstructing Roman society in those first ten books of _Civitate Dei_, including its entertainment. Quite right. Theatre was religion for them both as to form and content. 

Thanks as well for your very kind invitation. Miss D'Angelo's "Caro nome" was spectacular: very florid coloratura singing, ending on a gorgeous high Eb. I would be delighted to audition your recording(s). The Lyric here in Chicago will be doing Rigoletto in the coming season. Thanks again for your kindness.

Peace,
Alan

---------- Post added at 04:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------

Raymond:

Would all the consituency of the Westminster Assembly of Divines have considered all stage plays as lascivious? That's a challenging question that I have not specifically investigated. I don't know whether Chad van Dixhoorn, an expert on the Assembly, has considered that question. I would say that certainly some would.

However as the sentence in the Larger Catechism is constructed, "lascivious" applies to books and songs as well. Clearly the divines did not consider all books or songs lascivious. In fact, many book and songs would be holy and utilized in the public, private, and secret worship of God. In the context, then, "lascivious" would have to be taken to mean those books, songs, and stage plays that are, in fact, lascivious and would thus not constitute a blanket condemnation of all stage plays, although many divines would likely see stage plays as lascivious. 

I trust that these distinctions are clear.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## py3ak (Feb 14, 2012)

Years ago, on our honeymoon in fact, my wife and I saw Rigoletto at the Lyric - with Andrea Rost. I regret to say that Ramón Vargas had been replaced by a less talented tenor, and the production, in an attempt to be edgy and engaging to a younger demographic wound up being merely disgusting; but one could overlook all that as long as Andrea Rost was singing. Please do drop me a PM if your engagements take you through Indianapolis.

Raymond, if you've ever looked into Restoration drama, you probably remember that finding a play that isn't lascivious is more of a challenge than finding one that is - at least a couple of dramatists followed the line of a Cavalier poet like Herrick, in afterwards expressing repentance for some of what they'd written.


----------



## Christopher88 (Feb 14, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> In a sense, it is fair to say, God made all things to be enjoyed, including art, and cinema.
> 
> But how do we do that and separate ourselves from evil purveyed through it?
> As Christians to become professionals in the arts. (I'm including acting and movie making as an art) If Christians take on roles that are God honoring, could not the art form become more God honoring?
> ...



Good thoughtful question.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 14, 2012)

Ruben:

I have the recording of Rost with Alagna as the Duke, under Muti. Very nice. I also have on DVD Edita Gruberova and Pavarotti as Gilda and the Duke. The Duke perfectly suited Pav's voice and technique. He is magnificent in this Ponnelle production. I never heard him live in this. Ask me, sometime, about the Met production of _Trovatore_ in which I saw Pavarotti in 1988. Wonderful. 

How do I justify all of this under an OP on cinema? See fewer films and in the time that you would spend viewing them, engage instead oratorio, opera, the orchestra--it's far more rewarding because of its musical merits than so many "films" produced these days. So many movies are produced for adolescents and we need not waste our time with them. A good book and a Bruckner symphony are not a bad way to spend a free evening if one is not engaged in sacred reading and prayer (in the private and secret means of grace), or otherwise engaged in the fellowship of the saints or other social duties. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Philip (Feb 14, 2012)

I'd add as a corrollary here that one should also try to watch great films. I think that there are films that are as worth watching as some of the great books. I do not think that watching say, _Citizen Kane_, or _Double Indemnity_, or _The Seventh Seal_ is a waste of time at all. These are as much examples of excellent in the cinematic craft as _Moby Dick_ or _The Old Man and the Sea_ are of the literary craft.


----------



## Edward (Feb 14, 2012)

Andres said:


> Oops! Yes, I meant theater rather than cinema. Thanks.



Just having some fun after a long day that started several time zones away. 

And, of course, my quest for precision in writing and speech. `


----------



## py3ak (Feb 14, 2012)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Ruben:
> 
> I have the recording of Rost with Alagna as the Duke, under Muti. Very nice. I also have on DVD Edita Gruberova and Pavarotti as Gilda and the Duke. The Duke perfectly suited Pav's voice and technique. He is magnificent in this Ponnelle production. I never heard him live in this. Ask me, sometime, about the Met production of _Trovatore_ in which I saw Pavarotti in 1988. Wonderful.
> 
> ...



That sounds spectacular! I missed Pavarotti when he finally visited Mexico City - I had left a little before. I liked how he did the Duke with Joan Sutherland. To my mind, his most perfect appearance was as Nemorino in _L'Elisir d'Amore_ with Kathleen Battle. The vocal acting in the duet, "Non me guarda nippur ... esulti pur la barbara" is stunning, and lovelier singing is difficult to find - perhaps Battle surpasses herself on that score in _Il Signor Bruschino_, but it is hard to be sure. These days my winning pair is undoubtedly Paul Agnew and Susan Gritton.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 14, 2012)

Just a couple of points:

Should Christians watch Movies? - SermonAudio.com

Article by Archibald Brown - The Devil's Mission of Amusement

I'm actually not trying to stir the pot here, I just really found Dr Murray's sermon to be well done (though I do indeed watch the occasional movie). And I recall seeing Archibald Brown' article in an earlier thread somewhere...

Also, a point from the history of the CRC - they did a paper on the cinema in the 1920's showing that biblically, attending the cinema was sin. Then in 1967 (or thereabouts) they quietly rescinded the position, since most of the church would have been in sin if they continued to hold to it. Culture is quite adept at insinuating itself into the church.


----------



## BertMulder (Feb 14, 2012)

It is the position of the PRCA that drama is evil. I agree with that position.The Evil of Drama


----------



## JML (Feb 14, 2012)

BertMulder said:


> It is the position of the PRCA that drama is evil. I agree with that position.The Evil of Drama



Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

---------- Post added at 09:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 PM ----------

Great quote from another article from Bert's denomination. Very thought provoking.



> No one knows whether a play or movie is good or bad until he has seen it. And, if it is bad, the damage is done.
> 
> Herman Hanko, The Christian and Film Arts


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 14, 2012)

Ruben:

Pavarotti was great with Miss Battle in the Donizetti! The Met rendition of the two of them is magnificent. I heard her in a solo recital in Philadelphia in the mid-90s and she was in splendid voice. I grew hoarse from yelling "brava." Chicago boy Matthew Polenzani is also great in this repetoire. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Philip (Feb 14, 2012)

John Lanier said:


> No one knows whether a play or movie is good or bad until he has seen it. And, if it is bad, the damage is done.



This statement is highly fallacious: I can say the same thing about reading books.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 14, 2012)

Alan D. Strange said:


> He was great with Miss Battle in the Donizetti, no doubt! The Met rendition of the two of them is magnificent. I heard her in a solo recital in Philadelphia in the mid-90s and she was in splendid voice. I grew hoarse from yelling "brava." Chicago boy Matthew Polenzani is great in this repetoire.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



I can well imagine! To this day I regret my loss in the mid-90s of a program signed by the lovely Ying Huang after a recital of Handel arias.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 15, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I'd add as a corrollary here that one should also try to watch great films. I think that there are films that are as worth watching as some of the great books. I do not think that watching say, _Citizen Kane_, or _Double Indemnity_, or _The Seventh Seal_ is a waste of time at all. These are as much examples of excellent in the cinematic craft as _Moby Dick_ or _The Old Man and the Sea_ are of the literary craft.



You raise a good point. _Casablanca_ is by far my most favorate movie ever, it is art in fact. You are correct to point out the artistic and cultural relevence of "good" movies. I want to see the _Red Shoes_ for its artistic value. I mean something like _Singing in The Rain_ should be required watching by all movie lovers.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 15, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > I'd add as a corrollary here that one should also try to watch great films. I think that there are films that are as worth watching as some of the great books. I do not think that watching say, _Citizen Kane_, or _Double Indemnity_, or _The Seventh Seal_ is a waste of time at all. These are as much examples of excellent in the cinematic craft as _Moby Dick_ or _The Old Man and the Sea_ are of the literary craft.
> ...



"Should" implies a moral obligation - I can't imagine how a particular recreation gets to be obligatory. And perhaps along with _Singing in the Rain_ we should make a little light torture mandatory, so people know what that is like as well.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 15, 2012)

py3ak said:


> "Should" implies a moral obligation - I can't imagine how a particular recreation gets to be obligatory. And perhaps along with Singing in the Rain we should make a little light torture mandatory, so people know what that is like as well.



Me thinks you don't like this movie? Too bad, it is good. The point though was treating good movies like good novels. We read classic novels in the same way that we view good movies. The point is valid enough.


----------



## Philip (Feb 15, 2012)

py3ak said:


> "Should" implies a moral obligation



Not necessarily---that would be "ought." The "should" here would indicate aesthetic normativity.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 15, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > "Should" implies a moral obligation
> ...



Nicley put Philip.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 15, 2012)

And my point is that it's not a moral obligation to read even the greatest of novels.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 15, 2012)

py3ak said:


> And my point is that it's not a moral obligation to read even the greatest of novels.



Fair enough. You are right no one is "morally" obligated to read or watch anything whatsoever.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 15, 2012)

Well, if you believe the Confession, they should, ought to, and must read their Bibles.


----------



## Afterthought (Feb 15, 2012)

Thank you, Dr. Strange!



py3ak said:


> Raymond, if you've ever looked into Restoration drama, you probably remember that finding a play that isn't lascivious is more of a challenge than finding one that is - at least a couple of dramatists followed the line of a Cavalier poet like Herrick, in afterwards expressing repentance for some of what they'd written.


Thanks for the information! Although it's kind of hard for me to imagine that it is less difficult these days (not that you were implying it wasn't).


----------



## py3ak (Feb 15, 2012)

Afterthought said:


> Thank you, Dr. Strange!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't read many contemporary plays - but certainly after the Restoration and in subsequent times there were many plays that, whatever their other faults might have been, do not have lascivious texts. George Bernard Shaw comes to mind, or Luigi Pirandello.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 16, 2012)

While I cannot find a broad biblical prohibition against "drama," there certainly are many qualifications as have been referenced above in the Westminster Larger Catechism summary.

In the same way, we cannot rationalize away the many qualifications. Not with language that we are somehow redeeming garbage by watching, paying for or spending our time discussing it. Redemption, is of course possible, but anecdotal observation only, believers spend far too much time simply capitulating,and supporting it and making it the focus of their time.

Let's face it- much modern representation is calculated to exalt moral filth, to push standards of decency.

A major television series in the 1980's became the first to take the Lord's Name on prime time without being censored. The producer was so proud of the fact, he was giddy. Now, his characters could profain God's name in prime time television without being cut. He bragged to his peer group and publicly.

Now really, what an achievement to stand before our Lord on the judgment day to account for!

Biblically, we must be careful not to make up our own rules to bind men's conscience. But we must also understand the real biblical qualifications that we are so prone to violate or rationalize away.


----------



## Miss Marple (Feb 16, 2012)

Rufus, adultery and murder are portrayed in Scripture. But they are condemned rather than glorified. 

What disturbs me is watching a movie that glorifies or promotes sin. Sometimes that is a hard criteria to figure, but that is my criteria.


----------



## Rufus (Feb 16, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> Rufus, adultery and murder are portrayed in Scripture. But they are condemned rather than glorified.



I wasn't going for when they are glorified. I don't know if I'd feel comfortable seeing either glorified, however in a novel like _Crime and Punishment_ murder was condemned as a violation of natural law and conscience.


----------



## rbcbob (Feb 16, 2012)

Time out


----------

