Originally Written for Honors English 102 (Honors) on May 10, 2002

“Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.” – King Solomon¹

The king of ancient Israel believed enlightenment through secular sources was futile. The number of books available during his lifetime was astronomical. In fact, Solomon would use similar words about one of the most popular forms of entertainment today: the motion picture.

A motion picture, according to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, is a sequence of photographs or drawings. They are projected on a screen in rapid succession. They create the optical illusion of moving persons and objects. This happens because of the persistence of vision.²

Today, there is a seemingly never-ending choice of movies available to watch. It would be impossible for someone to watch every single film. Also, some films are not widely available due to their controversial content.

For centuries, creative content has caused conflict between artists and religious organizations. During the 19th Century, for example, the Catholic Church prohibited artists from displaying their works outside churches.

Nonetheless, motion pictures gave artists the opportunity to show their creative content in basements, coffee houses, and private establishments.

In fact, one of the first motion pictures containing religious symbolism was shown to French audiences. After the film screening, Catholic priests informed the local authorities that religious art was being shown in public.

Although the issue was settled, the brief meeting foreshadowed the precarious relationship between artists and religious organizations.

They debated how films should explore taboo subjects like religion, sex, and violence. According to Peter W. Williams, a professor of Religion and American Studies at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, filmmakers “[draw] on religious subjects.” Conversely, religious groups want “to influence the content and approach of films, at times with dramatic success.”³

To explain, religious groups believe the topics of religion, sex, and violence in film are exploited and mishandled by filmmakers. Conversely, artists wish for the freedom to openly explore the topics of religion, sex, and violence. They want to release their creative content as originally intended.

To discuss the issues between filmmakers and religious groups, we need to examine the primary argument between them. We must also consider the reasons for using religious themes in films. Finally, we must look at the pluralism between filmmakers and religious groups.

First, the main disagreement between filmmakers and religious groups is the idea that filmmakers are committing blasphemy. To clarify, blasphemy is defined as “profane or contemptuous speech, writing, or action about God, or anything held as divine.” The definition includes “any remark or action held to be irreverent or disrespectful.”

Understandably, Christians do not want to be guilty of blasphemy. Also, they want to avoid watching creative content that would be ridiculing the Bible.

Nevertheless, the Greek and English translations are slightly different. The Greek word of blasphemy describes “injurious, defamatory, or abusive speech toward God and human beings.” The English translation includes “disrespectful and abusive speech against sacred things.” ⁴

For example, Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) was considered extremely blasphemous. Based on the novel of the same name by Nikos Kazantzakis, Scorsese shows Jesus as an ordinary man. He struggled with various forms of emotions, including depression, doubt, fear, lust, and reluctance. Evidently, Scorsese wanted to use the Gospels as a background setting for exploring the topics of religion, sex, and violence. Thus, Scorsese offered a disclaimer. “This film is not based on the Gospels, but upon the fictional exploration of the eternal spiritual conflict.”

Yet, due to Scorsese’s unorthodox departure from the Biblical narrative, American communities held protest rallies outside their local theaters. In contrast, a few European religious groups committed violent terrorist attacks during screenings of the film.

In September 2000, six area churches objected to a special presentation of the film in New York. According to Brian Goodman, a noted author for American Libraries, religious leaders collected hundreds of signed petitions. They demanded the Catskill Public Library pull the film from their controversial art program.⁵ Ironically, the media coverage caused the attendance to exceed 3,000 individuals.

To understand the animosity between filmmakers and religious groups, it is necessary to review the history of the Production Code. This review provides context about how their relationship reached such a point.

During the early 1920s, the film industry founded the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA). Its purpose was to regulate the content of motion pictures. They aimed to do this without external forces interfering.⁶

In fact, according to Laurent Bouzereau, a film commentator, the group created the Production Code of “Don’ts and Be Carefuls.” The Code addressed profanity, nudity, drugs, perversion, sexual‑related themes (i.e. venereal diseases, childbirth), white slavery, miscegenation, ridicule of the church, and offenses against the nation, race, or creed.⁷

The Code prohibited filmmakers from using blasphemy against God. But this would not be enough for various religious organizations. For instance, the Catholic Church wanted to create nationwide programs to regulate and influence filmmakers into obeying the Code.

In 1934, the Church established the National Legion of Decency. The goal was to encourage filmmakers to remove offensive dialogue. It also aimed to warn the public about controversial films. Soon, the clergy recommended a boycott. They wanted the film industry to implement tougher and stricter rules. The campaign gained momentum and assistance from secular groups. The Code administrators guaranteed to Christian groups that “sin would no longer be depicted on the screen as desirable.” They also assured them that “sex would not be depicted in detail.” Lastly, “no crime would ultimately go unpunished.”

For years, the enforcement of the Code brought an illusion of peace and stability between filmmakers and religious groups.

Yet, according to Bouzereau, the MPAA struggled to enforce their own standards and guidelines. The conflict began when Otto Preminger refused to remove suggestive dialogue from The Moon Is Blue (1953). The film is a romantic comedy about a woman who innocently discusses her virginity.

Though Preminger’s boldness forced the studios to change the Code to allow sexual themes in film, blasphemy was still restricted.

Still, the film industry made the decision to regulate itself. This occurred without interference from the Legion of Decency.

On November 1, 1968, the MPAA created a rating systems board to oversee not only films. It also monitored “trailers, print ads, radio and TV spots, and press kits.” According to Jack Valenti, former president of the MPAA, they wouldn’t “approve or disapprove the content of a film.” Instead, they would give “advance cautionary warnings…so that parents could make the decision about the moviegoing of their young children.”⁸

Originally, unlike Catholic organizations, Jewish filmmakers were afraid to criticize the movie industry. In fact, Jewish communities turned away from drawing attention to themselves and their traditions.

According to Williams, Jewish directors “seemingly now felt secure enough to mount public criticism of their own communities for the broader film audience to witness.” They did this by adding their own perspective.

Now, filmmakers would deal with anti-Semitism themes in their films by introducing the Jewish people as heroic and brave individuals.

As a result, Jewish performers showed assertiveness and rose in popularity. Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein (1974) awakened the parody genre. Brooks helped make other Jewish actors famous including Madeline Kahn and Gene Wilder.

While the MPAA is still in effect, the organization only serves two purposes. The first purpose, according to Bouzereau, is to allow creative filmmakers to construct their movies the way they want. The second purpose is to give parents precise information to guide their children.

To clarify, the film industry decided that it is not the role of any group or organization to restrict artists. Neither secular nor religious groups should impose restrictions. Rather, it is up to the individual person to decide what is suitable for them and their family. But, if a film is classified as an R or NC-17, filmmakers can’t advertise their movies in most newspapers. They can’t advertise on television and radio stations. Without promotional materials, the release of a film would result in financial disaster for the studio. The only way to receive an acceptable rating is to remove the questionable dialogue. This will make it financially successful.

Despite the MPAA establishing a voluntary rating system, religious groups and secular organizations still demanded the censorship of films. Filmmakers feared repercussions. As a result, they continued to lack the artistic freedom to explore the topics of religion, sex, and violence openly.

Second, the reasons for using religious themes in films is obvious. The themes of temptation and redemption have been used by artists for thousands of years. This is because “what has been, will be again. What has been done will be done again. There is nothing new under the sun.”⁹

In fact, many filmmakers and critics would agree with the idea, as well.

According to George Lucas, creator of Star Wars, creative content has not “come very far emotionally.” He also said that “each society takes [an old] myth and retells it in a different way. This relates to the particular environment they live in. The motif is the same. It’s just that it gets localized.”¹⁰

As explained by Patrick T. McCormick, an associate professor of Christian ethics, “the advantage of a celluloid Christ would seem legion” to filmmakers.¹¹

As a result, unsatisfactory characterizations of Jesus Christ only inspired other filmmakers to create more unique and unorthodox portrayals.

For instance, McCormick reveals the characters in The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) and Jesus of Nazareth (1977) were inspirational. But the message was not “prophetic enough” for many audiences.

On the other hand, the depiction of Jesus in Norman Jewison’s Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) was considered offensive and blasphemous. According to McCormick, Jewison showed Jesus as a weak and strangely godless man. The film is filled with contemporary musical numbers and symbolism. These elements were obviously influenced by anti-war protests.

Furthermore, comedic and satirical filmmakers received criticism for exploring religious themes in their creative content.

The British comedy troupe used Christian themes in Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). Despite this, the controversy surrounding Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979) started during pre-production.

One, the screenplay had several title changes. These changes included calling the film “Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory” and “The Gospel According to Saint Brian.” The comedic filmmakers realized that they did not want the movie to be completely blasphemous. They settled on telling the story of Brian, a contemporary of Jesus Christ who is mistaken as the Messiah.

Two, the film was originally going to be financed by E.M.I., but the production company backed out of the deal. George Harrison thought this would be the only chance to see another Monty Python film. He decided to fund the project by creating his own company called Handmade Films.

The studio’s marketing campaign happily embraced the controversy. They recommended viewers to “see the movie that’s controversial, sacrilegious, and blasphemous. But if that’s not playing, see the Life of Brian.”

When the Life of Brian was released in theaters, the film caused outrage among religious communities, especially in European countries. According to Robert Hewison, a British cultural historian, many religious groups accused the film of mocking Jesus Christ. They believed the screenplay was blasphemous and heretical. Yet, the film’s opponents used the issue of full-frontal nudity to get the movie banned in their respective countries.¹²

The film was initially banned in Norway during its original theatrical release. It was not shown until 1980. The studio marketed the Life of Brian as “the film that is so funny that it was banned in Norway!”

In the opinion of the Monty Python cast members, their purpose was to show how ridiculous certain religious groups act. They agree that Jesus Christ was a great man. The comedians feel that the real message of the film is that Christians should simply follow the commandment of love. They should not fight and argue over scriptural doctrines and teachings of faith.

Also, Monty Python suggested that offended groups to “always look on the bright side of life.” Filmmakers would stop creating movies with religious themes if the studios “never [made] their money back.”

Furthermore, Kevin Smith, an independent filmmaker, faced a similar controversy with his religious comedy, Dogma (1999). It is the story about the last known descendant of Jesus Christ. She is called upon to save humanity from two renegade angels trying to exploit a scriptural loophole.

In 1999, Miramax Films planned to release the fourth installment of Smith’s cinematic universe. But Catholic organizations wanted the movie studio to shelve Dogma indefinitely. Although the film offered a satirical view about Catholic doctrine, Smith never intended to offend the Catholic Church.

According to Jim McDonnell, the director of the Catholic Communications Center in London and vice‑president of the International Catholic Organization for Cinema and Audiovisuals, Christians “must help people discern between those elements of spirituality in contemporary culture and mass media. These elements might be real paths to God or false trails.”

In contrast, Smith was confused that a priest can mix comedy during a sermon, but filmmakers can’t put religion into a comedy.¹³

Filmmakers were criticized for exploring religious characters and themes in more surrealist, dreamlike, and comedic ways. But there is still the possibility of pluralism between secular and religious groups in filmmaking.

For instance, the Religion Communicators Council announced during the Wilbur Awards that Lasse Hallström’s Chocolat (2000) won the Best Film Award. Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing (1999) won the Best Television Drama Award. Both contained religious themes.

In fact, Chocolat tells the story of a chocolate maker plagued with strict morality enforced by the village’s mayor. The mayor has control of the local Catholic Parish. Conversely, The West Wing dealt with the issue of capital punishment.¹⁴

Yet, the trend of “God Exploitation” films has been criticized, as well.

In particular, Peter LaLonde, producer of Left Behind (2000), believes that his fellow colleagues are judged for being too fundamentalist. He declares that his goal is to reach people through good storytelling. He also wants to be seen as a filmmaker who happens to also be a Christian.

Also, Act One, a coalition of Christian writers and producers, receives donations from the Catholic Church to produce their films. Their goal is to stop the martyrdom outlook that has faced other similar filmmakers.¹⁵

While artists use religious themes as a form of self‑expression, there is a difference between the secular and spiritual world. As a matter of fact, there are many science fiction films which do not have a religious agenda.

One, Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982) has often escaped extensive dissection. Religious groups have not extensively examined it for its heavy religious themes and subtext. From the point of view of Sharon L. Gravett, a noted author from Valdosta State University, the film “draws on elements from a number of sacred traditions.” Gravett’s main concern is that everyone notices the Creation theme borrowed from the Genesis account. But they neglect to point out other Biblical similarities, namely, “that of the patriarch Israel (born Jacob).” Throughout her analysis, Gravett compares various characters and situations in Blade Runner and the Bible. She concludes the film asks, “the age-old question of what it means to be human.”¹⁶

Two, the success of George Lucas’s Star Wars (1977) clearly demonstrates the difference between the secular and spiritual world. According to Bill Moyers, a noted journalist and interviewer, the popularity of Star Wars started because “the hunger for spiritual experience was no longer being satisfied sufficiently by the traditional vessels of faith.”

As a matter of fact, Lucas included many religious themes and mythological references in the Star Wars movies. The existence of the Force, for example, can be traced to Buddhism. It also relates to other Far East religions.

Additionally, Lucas states that his films represent a collection of religious, mythological, and political issues. His films offer a “modern and easily accessible construct [. . .] that there is a greater mystery out there.”

While Lucas believes religious faith is important, there needs to be a healthy balance with secular experiences in life. Obviously, Star Wars is more than a religious allegory; it is a story of the hero’s journey.

Yes, the solution involves more than pointing out the controversies between a film’s creative content and a religion’s beliefs. Pluralism is necessary.

Undeniably, the purpose of filmmaking is purely creative. Many artists feel the need to express their feelings and ideas through the motion picture.

Sometimes, young people struggle to find enlightenment through religious organizations. Nevertheless, films which include heroic characters can help young people find religion.

Undoubtedly, parents can help their children compare qualities that the Son of Skywalker shares with the Son of God. They can also teach children the importance of establishing a strong and healthy belief system.

Truly, if all things are possible then artists and religious groups can coexist in the same world. They can join equally in the filmmaking process.

WORKS CITED

1. Ecclesiastes 12:12, New International Version. ↩︎
2. Webster. Webster’s New World College Dictionary. Third edition. New York, New York. Simon & Shuster Macmillian Company, 1996. ↩︎
3. Williams, Peter W. “The Catholic Crusade Against the Movies.” Religion and American Culture. Summer 2000. v10. 225‑239. Academic Search Elite. Online. EBSCOhost. 20 Mar 2002. ↩︎
4. Insight on the Scriptures, page 337 ↩︎
5. Goodman, Brian. “Censorship Watch.” American Literature. Nov 2000. v31. 17. Academic Search Elite. Online. EBSCOhost. 20 Mar 2002. ↩︎
6. The MPPDA was renamed the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) in 1945. ↩︎
7. Bouzereau, Laurent. Cutting Room Floor. First edition. Secaucus, New Jersey. Carol Publishing Group, 1994. ↩︎
8. Valenti, Jack. “Motion Picture Association of America: How It Works.” MPAA Organization Website. Jan 2000. 7 May 2002. http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/about/index.htm ↩︎
9. Ecclesiastes 1:9, New International Version. ↩︎
10. Moyers, Bill. “Of Myth and Men.” Time. 26 Apr 1999. v153. 90‑94. Academic Search Elite. Online. EBSCOhost. 8 Apr 2002. ↩︎
11. McCormick, Patrick T. “Jesus Christ, Movie Star.” U.S. Catholic.  May 2000. v65. 46‑48. Academic Search Elite. Online. EBSCOhost. 27 Mar 2002. ↩︎
12. Hewison, Robert. Monty Python: The Case Against: Irreverence, Scurrility, Profanity, Vilification and Licentious Abuse. 1981. ↩︎
13. Corliss, Richard and Ressner, Jerry “Can God Take a Joke?” Rpt. in Time 11/15/99, Vol. 154 Issue 20, following p.102, 1p, 5c. ↩︎
14. “Religious Groups Honor Chocolat, Return to Me.” Pt. in Christian Century 5/02/01, Vol. 118 Issue 14, p12. ↩︎
15. Goodale, Gloria “Will Hollywood Get Religion?” Pt. Christian Science Monitor, 10/12/01, Vol 93 Issue 223, p13. ↩︎
16. Gravett, Sharon L. “The Sacred and the Profane: Examining the Religious Subtext of Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner.” Literature/Film Quarterly. 1998. v26. 38‑45. Academic Search Elite. Online. EBSCOhost. 27 Mar 2002. ↩︎