Film & POE

Films are alluring, often designed as candy for the eyes as well as the ears. So they become all the more dangerous when they damage their audience. It reminds me of a candy scare when I was a child. We skipped Halloween that year because there was a rumor going around that some sick soul was slipping poison into the candy.

This is the potential danger of film - its attractiveness - and it's why film's Potentially Offensive Elements (POE) should probably be taken more seriously than their existence in any other art form.

Film, in a way, pretends to be reality, and this pretence can cause problems when it incorporates sin's brokenness. Some people's makeup leads them to react dramatically to film's POE: you cringe at the brutal violence in Pan's Labyrinth, your eyes widen at the sexuality of Little Children, the profanity in The Departed rings furiously in your ears. Maybe you've even skipped films like these because you know in advance what your reaction will be. Other people don't seem to have a drastic reaction to POE in film. Violence, sexuality, profanity, aberrant worldview seem to wash over you like water off a duck's back.

But which perspective is better? Is it better to revolt from sin like sickness? Or is it better to allows its representation as not only an honest portrayal of reality, but also the necessary conditions for redemption? The answer, I suppose, is yes. There is truth in both perspectives, which is why your own strengths and weaknesses and God's calling on your life need to be so important.

After all, one of the most dangerous POE in film is its insistence that it is better than reality. Postmodern philosopher Jean Baudrillard coined the term the pornography of the real to stand as an extreme description of hyperreality. Films can be more real than reality itself, which can lead to all sorts of abuses - like escape, dissatisfaction, reading film back into reality, and so on. I know I've caught myself doing this before.

Wow, with so many dangers, why watch film at all? Isn't visiting Blockbuster like looking for food in the trash? Well, no. It is true that a great deal of the art created by image-bearers will not be edifying to anyone. It's called Sturgeon's Law. But a great deal of everything people do falls visibly shorter than the glory of God.

What to do, then? How should we then live? Well, the essence is God's calling. Should the pursuit of film be a part of your life, given what God has gifted you for and given you to do? If so, how much film is appropriate? What kinds of films would help you as an image-bearer in your part of his world - help you to be reminded of the prison of your own sin, of the longings of a fallen world, of the surprising beauties of redemption, of the joys of created life, of the needs all around you.

It's not a relativist position. It's not saying anything goes. It is insisting that film contains both beauties and brokenness. If it were only one and not the other, the choice would be obvious. But since real life - and the story of films - is a tricky mix of creation, fall and redemption, life as any sort of image-bearer demands discernment.

Film is powerful, and its power can be a force for good or for ill. The approach of the image-bearer should be the approach of God: as you have opportunity, and as grace makes itself known, work that tangle of good and ill together for good. Where it is wise, let that representation of sin remind you that you are the Villain. Where it is edifying, let that violence stir a holy anger in you, motivating you to advocacy for the unjust suffering in our world. Where it contributes to a virtuous love and gratitude toward the Maker, or simply to the loveliness of marital intimacy, appreciate the contribution that sexuality can bring. Allow emptiness to connect you to God's goodness and whole-making-ness.

And where any of the inadequacies of film are tending to damage you as a believer, set personal fences to keep yourself in the joy and unviolation of God's will and calling for your life. Where the POE of film are damaging a fellow image-bearer, prepare yourself to love them with truth that flows from a desire for the shalom, the wholeness that God intends for our lives. It's a wholeness that starts with the way God made things to be. It doesn't close its eyes to sin, but rather horrors at it, weeps at it as it passes on to the warm restoration that comes with redemption, the undeserved forgiveness found in Christ.

Remember, the POE in film should never be a part of your sin. If they are, repent. The POE in film are instead very much like others' sin. How do you respond to sin in others, sin in the world? How should you respond? In a world where cinema competes for our attentions as believers - a broken but beautiful part of God's creation - these are the questions and the passions that should be on our minds and hearts.

Comments

[Will]

Basham, sorry to take so long in responding to your comment. You ask an excellent question.

I realize my position may not be everyone's, but my take would be that art is imbued with moral qualities because it's made by moral people for moral people. But since art is an object, it's not responsible for what it is.

So that's how I came to the approach this post takes: art has some 'good' & 'bad' in it, but don't blame the object if you respond with sin. The burden is on the person (to choose in the first place about seeing something, and then about the right kind of response).

Hope that answers your question. Enjoy flying the friendly skies!

[Basham Johnson]

I read your entire post and I am forced to wonder if film is Art is it not amoral? By amoral I mean the defintion- outside scope of morality: not concerned with or amenable to moral judgments.

It was great to meet you by the way. May our paths cross again.

[RC of strangeculture]

I certainly wouldn't mind if your POE terminology took flight...it certainly would make describing and discussing certain films with others.

Someone says...what did you think about American Gangster, and I could say. "There's certainly POE, and beyond that..."

That would be good! Spread the term, and make it famous.

[Fox (Mark)]

Thanks for adding another chapter to the morality in cinema discussion.

I like this: "...as you have opportunity, and as grace makes itself known, work that tangle of good and ill together for good."

I think this is where MANY modern filmmakers drop the ball. While some may have good intentions, the end result too often is "for bad", or, to make the audience FEEL bad (or guity).

I also think the POE perspective could be applied to documentary, which, I personally, find to be "dangerous" when it purports to BE reality when it's always a SKEWED reality.

[Ando]

Great post. I had something very similar in mind for the blog-a-thon. I know I have found it difficult in my own life to determine just what I think is OK for me to watch, in light of Psalm 119:37. What should determine what is "worthless"? Some things are easy, some are not. For me its a constant practice of evaluating and re-evaluating. Which is not really a bad thing.

[Jordan]

Wow--good post. Definite food for thought.