# Scum and Villiany



## satz (May 8, 2005)

hullo all...

i was browsing though some of the threads here on the entertainment section, in particular the threads on Star Wars and comics, and was just wondering about something.

those of us who enjoy fiction of any kind probably know that a good villian is one of the things that makes many stories memorable and cool. This is especially so in fantasy ,sci-fi or action stories, which is why i mentioned the star wars and comics.

So, my question is, as christians how far should we go in enjoying this aspect of the stories. Now i don't think there is anything inherently wrong at all in the portrayal of evil or baddies in stories and it is completely possible for christians to enjoy stories of good vs evil or the triumph over oppression.

However, as those into sci fi/comics/fantasy will know, many people seem to be over infatuated with the baddies. When you think of Star Wars who automatically comes to mind as making it cool...for most people i'am sure its Darth Vader...if not in first place and somewhere close. Likewise for every fan who reads Spider man for Peter parker, i'am sure there's another who's really more interested in Carnage, Venom, etc etc.

Well...just hoping to hear the thoughts of those here who enjoy a good story....but are trying to enjoy God more...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 8, 2005)

Actually, I think Han Solo made Star Wars cool. I just wish they would have given him a light saber


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 8, 2005)

They used to call J.R. Ewing "the man America loved to hate." Same could be said of Darth Vader, Lex Luthor, the Green Goblin, Galactus, Magneto and many more. My "favorite" bad guy is Moriarty (re: Sherlock Holmes). 

[Edited on 5-9-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Robin (May 8, 2005)

I thought the whole story line; lifestyle; idea of traveling to other worlds like we travel to another state; the quaint, interesting customs and traditions of cultures in the first set of Star Wars editions was fascinating....then the story-lines became stupider and stupider....I mourn the loss of George Lucas' ability to tell a cohesive story well....however, I'm bound to give it one last try for the final installation.....not that I overly care about Darth Vader, but that I used to care about the characters interconnectedness in the former installments. We'll see if this last film hearkens back to what the hard-core fans loved to begin with....elements that echo/mirror the One True Myth (as JRR Tolkien put it.)



Robin


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 8, 2005)

"Resistance is futile."










[Edited on 5-9-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 8, 2005)

Uh Patrick 







[Edited on 5-9-2005 by Bladestunner316]


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 9, 2005)

Having a good bad guy to hate and root against makes a story GREAT. The entire pro wrestling business is based on that idea, or at least used to be.


----------



## satz (May 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Having a good bad guy to hate and root against makes a story GREAT. The entire pro wrestling business is based on that idea, or at least used to be.



Agreed.

Hmmm...unless my memory is failing me, i remember you mentioned being involved in the wrestling business once...wondering what you think of this; While i don't see any issue for the spectators enjoying a story like the one you mention, do you think there are any issues for the actor/wrestler portraying the baddie?


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 9, 2005)

GOOD QUESTION!!!

And yes, that's why I left. I played a bad guy and I played one very well. I excused it as "acting" and for the most part, it was. But, in wrestling, the real good "bad guys" draw from real feelings. In a way that can be fun because you can act and speak in ways that you don't normally.

The more successful you become the harder it can be at times to seperate the character from reality. In the business that's called "working". I ran a website for a few years where I "worked" people, in other words, I remained in character on the website. It was very successful but many of the people who visited hated me and came just because of that.

I found it difficult to share my testimony as most people that i had "worked" believed I was the jerk I pretended to be. 

I had a real opportunity to succeed in wrestling and had one major fed asking for me to send them a tape. I walked away at the the time I was recieving the biggest opportunities.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Uh Patrick
> 
> 
> ...



That doesn't count! All he did was stuff Luke in a stinky beast. I'm talkin' bout Jedi stuff.


----------



## Jie-Huli (May 10, 2005)

I cam across this article, a "review" of the film "Chariots of Fire", and found it quite an interesting criticism of "acting" which involves imitating sinful behaviour. I am curious what others on the board think of this.

I read it at this site (which I know little about): http://www.puritans.net/movie reviews/chariotsoffire.htm




> We should also note the obvious fact that Chariots of Fire is a drama involving actors who portray other people. The word of God uniformly treats stage acting as immoral, just as it treats harlotry as immoral. The very term rendered in our English Bibles as "œhypocrite" in the Greek is the word "œstage actor". Stage acting is pejoratively treated in scripture because it necessarily involves immoral conduct. In order to be realistic, stage acting must include imitating the sins of others. But it is wrong to imitate the sins of others. For instance, someone had to play the part of the Judaist in the movie Chariots of Fire. That is as wrong as allowing our children to play "œcops and robbers", wherein some children must necessarily play the robbers. It is not wholesome or good to play the wicked. But even if all the characters in a movie were Christian, to be realistic it would involve the actors in imitating sin. Thus, if an actor were to portray King David, he would have to re-enact adultery with some actress in order realistically to convey what happened in the life of David. But this would certainly be wrong. So unless a movie or stage-play is untruthful (which would also be wrong), it necessarily entails actors imitating the sinful deeds of others. And even acts which are not sinful in real life, as a husband kissing his wife, are wrong when done by two actors who are not married. (Chariots of Fire has such scenes.) So we should reject stage-plays, for if stage acting is wrong, then we should not allow ourselves to be entertained by it either. As Romans 1:32 affirms, we should not enjoy or be entertained by an evil act, just as we should not commit evil acts. And therefore Chariots of Fire , simply as a movie, is immoral.
> 
> I am by no means alone in my condemnation of stage acting and drama. As the noted Presbyterian minister Samuel Miller testified two centuries ago: "œIn the primitive Church, both the players, and those who attend the theatre, were debarred from the Christian sacraments. All the Fathers, who speak on the subject, with one voice attest that this was the case. A number of the early Synods or Councils, passed formal canons, condemning the theatre, and excluding actors, and those who intermarried with them, or openly encouraged them, from the privileges of the Church... Almost all the reformed Churches have, at different times, spoken the same language, and enacted regulations of a similar kind. The Churches of France, Holland, and Scotland, have declared it to be "˜unlawful to go to comedies, tragedies, interludes, farces, or other stage plays, acted in public or private; because, in all ages, these have been forbidden among Christians, as bringing in a corruption of good manners.´"


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 10, 2005)

I respect J. Parnell McCarter and often agree with his opinions. But on this issue I disagree. 

Acting is not a violation of the ninth commandment per se, although consideration ought to be given by actors to the overall goal of the dramatic performance as well as to specific acts performed. 

The Westminster Assembly could have said acting was unlawful in its exposition of the ninth commandment in the Larger Catechism, but did not. It did condemn "_lascivious_ stage plays" with reference to the seventh commandment. It would also condemn "passion plays" with reference to the second commandment. Those kinds of distinctions are important, and Biblical, rather than a blanket condemnation of acting. 

The third commandment critique is interesting. I'd have to consider that further. When I see rehearsed prayers to God uttered in movies I do wonder about that.

"Chariots of Fire" is one of my favorite movies precisely because it shows an honorable and courageous treatment of the fourth commandment. 

I am aware that the actor who played Eric Liddell was a sodomite. Nevertheless, I can commend his acting while deploring his personal conduct which lead to his death by AIDS. 

I know that many Puritans were opposed to acting and drama. It their day, like in Hollywood today, there was much to criticize in terms of the acting culture. But their age also produced Shakespeare and Spencer among others. Beza, for example, wrote a play about the sacrifice of Abraham (1550). I believe we ought to look for the good (by common grace) to be found in dramatic art and acknowledge Christ's lordship over all the arts, which are to be redeemed for his glory.


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Actually, I think Han Solo made Star Wars cool. I just wish they would have given him a light saber



Ancient weapons and hokey religions are no match for a good blaster at your side!


----------



## Anton Bruckner (May 28, 2005)

no bad guy can beat Jack Nicholson as the Joker in the first Batman. "Where does he get those wonderful toys?"


----------

