Thursday, April 2, 2009

The Violent

Our pastor raised the question about the morality of violent imagery in media, here's what how I'm responding so far...

Violent imagery, like any other imagery, can be shocking to the uninitiated.

Violence in media is a medium. Like any medium, it is neither good nor evil, it carries the message of the mediator.

In the example of Saw, when Jigsaw orchestrates a horrific situation where a man has to consider sawing off his own leg, what is his (and the writer/director's) intent?

Most importantly, what can/will we take from that?

If we enjoy the idea of someone toying with the life of another, we need to search our heart, because somewhere in there is an unhealthy fixation on power, and probably a weakness of will in our self that requires some voyeuristic exercise of authority.

Another example, this is a little more gray, when we watch an action movie, where good is battling evil in whatever form of hyper-stylized combat, why do we find these sequences exhilarating?

Searching my own heart, it would seem that the artful beauty of whatever martial art (be it kung fu, stylized gun battle, sword play, giant robots, aliens...) is being portrayed displays both excellence and the unpredictability of conflict. Will good triumph? Usually yes, but at what cost?

Even in the depravity of something like Saw there are lessons to be learned, God does not hold his hand over our eyes that we might not be corrupted by the violence of the Old Testament (tent peg hammered through skull stands out in my memory).

Ultimately I think the unredeemed heart will rejoice in the evil of violence. The redeemed heart may be sobered by the depravity, enriched by the victory, or convicted by the humanity.

However, I'm not saying all of you who find R-rated violent imagery and gore unwatchable are inferior for your inability to appreciate something.

I think that this is exactly the type of freedom to be given up for the weaker brother.

For example, I suggested some guys at church getting together to watch Pulp Fiction (it's a theological/philosophical goldmine), one guy wasn't too excited by the idea because he doesn't like it's violent content, I'm not going to insist on watching Pulp Fiction, we'll watch The Princess Bride if needs be, because I value his fellowship more than that or any movie.

5 comments:

Jonathan Dodson said...

Andrew: I admire your deference to others on the issue of violence in film.

However, I disagree with this statement: "Violence in media is a medium. Like any medium, it is neither good nor evil, it carries the message of the mediator." The medium is never neutral; it affects the way we process information, the way we see the world, the values we hold. This point was poignantly made by Marshall McLuhan in his phrase: "the medium is the message."

For instance, Paul's use of circular letters to communicate Christian faith, doctrine, and practice communicates the message that Xn faith is communal and missional. It should "circulate." Negatively, the rampant use of image and film has changed the way we process information. Less memorization, less analysis, less imagination, and more sound-bite philosophy. The shift from oral culture to written culture with Gutenburg's press, another medium, radically changed society. The medium is value laden. We need to think critically and redemptively about both the medium and the message. I'm confident you'll take up that challenge!

Moreover, aren't there things that are inherently wrong with violence? "Thou shalt not murder."

somekindarobot said...

Very good point about the medium not being neutral, I didn't feel too strongly about the statement, but it seemed a good way to get the ball rolling. However, I don't see how violence (violence itself, without context) could be inherently wrong. I had started to write a paragraph about our violent God. And here's the conclusion I've come to. Violence is born out of the fall, but consider this statement.

Genesis 3:15
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."

God institutes violence in Genesis 3. And I would almost wonder if all parties involved were like "woah, hold on God, that's a little strong don't you think?"

The violent putting down of sin, the violent wrestling with the self, the violent destruction of evil.

Violence as medium and method won't be redeemed until Jesus comes back.

And you would have to acknowledge that "thou shalt murder" has nothing to do with "thou shalt be violent"

But before this discussion goes any further (and interferes with mission), what do you think about the combative element of the gospel?

somekindarobot said...

also, what do you think about the transition from an oral (ancient) to literal (modern) to visual (post-modern)?

It would seem like Satan is destroying the impact of the Gospel by turning our brains to gelatinous ooze (like the hulu commercials).

Or God has so penetrated the universe with his glory that mankind has been forced to be reduced to a vegetable in order to hide from him.

Bryan Cox said...

Jonathan, I want you to know that your statement about medium being message has been driving me crazy for two days, but last night it clicked, and I agree.

The problem of violence in movies is not that it is always senseless; it is often that its viewers are senseless. Not everyone understands that Bruce Willis slicing some rapists has redemptive qualities and that he rides on grace. Even Passion of the Christ does not have full impact, the violence stirs emotion, rather than deepening the impact of the gospel or causing people to question how the violence of the Cross has redeemed the violence of their lives.

Do we need more literary learners or emotional viewers?

Anonymous said...

Precisely, Bryan! Way to think it out. Film can often subvert the imagination, desensitize the conscience, desacralize the truth. Of course, it can do just the opposite also. But if we aren't redemptively engaging both the medium and the message, the message can get lost AND we can unknowingly digest another message.