The Cinema regarded as sin?

[jwright82]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?



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

Good thoughtful question.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

 

[JML]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

"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]

"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]

"Should" implies a moral obligation

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

 

[jwright82]

"Should" implies a moral obligation

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

Nicley put Philip.

 

[py3ak]

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

 

[jwright82]

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]

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

 

[Afterthought]

Thank you, Dr. Strange!

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]

Thank you, Dr. Strange!

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).

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]

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]

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.