The Curates Egg

Sex and Violence

Prologue

Many thanks to those of you who spoke to me about your recollections of Dursley's cinemas or of the making of Dulcima (discussed last month). Lionel  and Judith both lived near the farm used in the film, and each told me about the then occupant – a local farmer who apparently appears briefly in the film (in one of the market scenes) and who even had some similarities with the John Mills character. Marion Pagett told me she used to go to the Victoria Cinema every Saturday (sixpence for the cheap seats at the front) and the young lady who sold the tickets later became her sister in law.

My most recent trip to the cinema cost me a lot more than sixpence and the film I saw would never have got past the censors in Marion's day. It was 'Sin City' with Bruce Willis and Mickey Rourke and was without doubt the most violent film I've seen this year. Why then (you may ask) did I go and see it? You may even question whether Christians should really be watching films with sex and violence in at all?   

Sin City

In the student newsletter at Trinity my friend Ravi and I published a list of 100 films that we thought anyone interested in cinema ought to try and see (it's included on my links & lists page). Some of the students were surprised to see the likes of 'The Exorcist' or 'A Clockwork Orange' on the list and told us they would never watch such films because of their content. Some even said that we should not watch such films either, and quoted Philippians 4:8, "whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things".

Now of course I respect any individual's decision to avoid 'unpleasant' scenes or films, and I fully support the protection of children through the rating system. I also know that there are some extreme images which I never want to see - and I can think of no justifiable reason for anyone else seeing them either. But I do not accept that the Bible as a whole, or Philippians 4:8 in particular, is instructing us to avoid all such images. In fact I think the point Paul is making is not that we should be avoiding popular culture but that we should be embracing what is good within it in a discriminating way.

I have stated a number of times over the last six months my belief that as examples of art and popular culture movies are an important resource to faith and life. I am aware however that whilst I have given examples of how they might be used as a resource I have not theologically justified their use in the first place. For most people who are interested enough in films to still read this column this is probably not an issue, but it is one which I feel I ought to address more fully at some stage.

For now however suffice to say that a key element of this theological justification is the ability of films to enhance our understanding of our world, ourselves and of God through the depiction and examination of all aspects of life – good and bad. Whilst therefore we are right to object to violence and sexual immorality this does not mean that all representations of sex or violence are intrinsically immoral in themselves.

The confirmation of this is found in the Bible itself, for the 'Good Book' is full of 'bad' acts and you don't have to look too hard to find descriptions of profanity, blasphemy, violence, sexual immorality and every other type of sin imaginable. Some of these representations go into great detail and not only include descriptions of historic events but also allegorical stories or even parables. God then has no problem using representations of these things within the context of telling the story of His relationship with His people and the Good News of the Gospel, and this of course is the key – context.

There is a huge difference between a film which uses representations of violence to enhance and strengthen a storyline or make a moral point, and one which celebrates or glorifies violence in a way which is amoral and exploitative; between, for example, 'Saving Private Ryan' and some of those teenage slasher movies which were popular a few years ago.

This however is where things start to get difficult because the interpretation of any work of art is bound to have a subjective element. Therefore what one person may feel is a gratuitous use of violence or an exploitative film another may genuinely feel is justifiable or even ultimately redemptive. And of course the more difficult a film is to 'read' or understand the more likely this is to happen. This doesn't mean that all morality is relative but we do need to recognise this ambiguity and to be prepared to accept that another person's view on a film may be as valid as our own. 

Epilogue

So where does all this leave us with Sin City? Well on the plus side whilst the 'heroes' in the film behave pretty badly at times they do have some sort of moral code, they are prepared to sacrifice themselves for what (and who) they believe in - and the villains are much worse! Also because this is an extremely stylised adaptation of a comic book story the whole film has a feeling of unreality which could be said to make the violence unreal also. The performances are terrific and the stylisation is such that visually the film is magnificent and unlike anything I have seen before. Is this enough to justify the level of violence? For me, well; no – not quite. For all its strengths I felt that the film was a triumph of style over content and that much as I liked the style ultimately the film lacked enough depth to make the level of violence meaningful.

I don't regret going to see it because it is an unusual film stylistically and as a film fan I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Also, while something either more wholesome or more profound would have been preferable, one of the purposes of film is to stimulate examination of values; and at least it has enabled me to do that! 

Tim