Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture

Review Essay: Religion Goes to the Movies

The Catholic Crusade against the Movies, 1940-1975 by Gregory D. Black; American Religious
and Biblical Spectaculars by Gerald E. Forshey; Screening the Sacred: Religion, Myth, and
Ideology in Popular American Film by Joel W. Martin; Conrad E. Ostwalt,; Seeing and
Believing: Religion and Values in the Movies by Margaret R. Miles; Hollywood Dreams and
Biblical Stories by Bernard Brandon Scott
Review by: Peter W. Williams
Religion and American Culture: A Journal of Interpretation, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Summer, 2000),
pp. 225-239
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Center for the Study of Religion and
American Culture
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1123947 .
Accessed: 06/01/2014 22:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Religion and American Culture: A Journal of
Interpretation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:13:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review Essay:
Religion Goes to the Movies

PeterW.Williams

GregoryD. Black, The CatholicCrusadeagainsttheMovies,1940-1975

(Cambridgeand New York:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1998). xii +
302 pp.

Gerald E. Forshey,American Religiousand BiblicalSpectaculars

(Westport,
Conn.:Praeger,1992).xii + 202 pp.

JoelW. Martinand Conrad E. Ostwalt,Jr.,eds., Screening

theSacred:Reli-
gion,Myth,and Ideologyin PopularAmericanFilm (Boulder:Westview
Press,1995).x + 193pp.

MargaretR. Miles, Seeingand Believing:Religionand Valuesin theMovies

(Boston:Beacon Press,1996).xvi + 254 pp.
BernardBrandonScott,Hollywood Dreamsand BiblicalStories(Minneapo-
lis: FortressPress,1994).xi + 297 pp.

Film-a.k.a. "cinema" and "the movies"-occupies a liminal

place in the academic pecking order of media. Television is clearly
"popular" and of academic interestmainly to the cultural studies
folk.Literature,thoughbesieged, neverthelessmaintainsa venerable
status withinthe canon of the liberal arts. Film, however,cuts both
ways and, though a product of twentieth-century technology,has
generateda sufficient lineage of directorsof auteurstatus-Bergman,
Fellini,Griffith,Hitchcock,Renoir-to be deemed worthyof studyas
art as well as entertainment.Film viewing,togetherwith television,
has also emerged as the dominantmode of popular entertainment,
with printcultureno longer able to claim the uncontestedlyprivi-
leged status of expressionand communicationthatit enjoyed in the
now-bygone era shaped by both Gutenbergand the Protestantre-
formers.In the academy,the humanitiesfaculty,along with the un-
dergraduatestudentbody,have become enamoredwithfilmviewing

Religion and AmericanCulture:A Journalof Interpretation, Volume 10, No. 2, pages 225-239.
@ 2000 by The Center forthe Study of Religion and American Culture.All rightsreserved.
Send requests forpermissionto reprintto: Rightsand Permissions,Universityof CaliforniaPress,
JournalsDivision, 2000 Center St., Ste. 303, Berkeley,CA 94704-1223.
ISSN: 1052-1151

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:13:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
226 ReligionandAmerican
Culture

and no longer apologize for preferring popular movies to "art

films"-which,as mycolleagueRuthSandersputsit,taughtus that
moviescould be boring.Religiondepartments, includingmy own,
now offer filmseriesand courseofferings. A numberofverydifferent
bookson thetopicofreligionand popularfilmin theUnitedStates
duringthepast decade help illuminatetheevolutionoftheinterac-
tion of these two culturalrealmsand raise some important and
difficultquestions as to how theirstudymight be combined.'
The interaction betweentherealmsofreligionand filmante-
dates by severaldecades its academicstudy.Fromearlyon, films
drew on religioussubjects,and, conversely, religiousgroups at-
tempted to influencethe content and of
approach films, at timeswith
dramaticsuccess.The ambiguities oftherelationship betweenthese
tworealmsofcultureis illustrated nicelyin a seriesofrelatedevents
in themedium'searlyhistory. Photographic filmwas inventedbyan
and
Episcopalpriest, the first
photographic filmshownwas an 1898
version of the Oberammergaupassion play.2When Hollywood
mogul-to-be AdolphZukorscreenedthisproduction in Parisa decade
later,a Catholic priestwho had been in theaudienceapproachedthe
bewilderedZukortowarnthathe was goingto ask theauthorities to
shutdownthetheater. As itturnedout,thecleric'sproblemwas not
withthefilmitselfbutratherwitha religiously themedfilm'sbeing
exhibited ina secularsetting.3Thedispute,thoughamicablyresolved,
illustrates a fundamental tensionbetweenthetwo realmsfromthe
verystart:thepriestmayhavebeenparochial, so tospeak,inhisreac-
tion,buthe mayalso havesensedthat,at a deeperlevel,therelation-
shipbetweenreligionand filmcouldprovehighlyproblematic. "Go-
ingto themovies"was an activity performed in a speciallydesigned
ritualspace,similartothebaseballstadiumsthatwerealso providing
an urbanpublicwithsecularalternatives to religiousrituals.4 It was
also, like tabloidnewspapers,glossyillustratedmagazines,radio,
television, and theInternet, a sourceofinformation abouttheworld
filteredthrougha verydifferent lensfromthatoftraditional clerical
guardiansofpublicopinion.
Althoughearlyfilmssuchas D.W.Griffith's Intolerance (1916)
and CecilB. DeMille'sfirst takeofTheTenCommandments (1923)dealt
withreligionfroman ostensibly sympathetic standpoint, theexcesses
oftheeraofthesilentsand earlyDepression-era talkiessoonbrought
aboutpowerfulprotests frominterest groups,especiallytheCatholic
church.'(Clara Bow's beingamorouslyattackedby a GreatDane is
one particularlylurid example of period filmsnot oftenshown on
televisiontoday.) The filmindustry'sProductionCode of 1930 was
not seriouslyenforceduntilthe Catholic church'sLegion of Decency,

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:13:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReligionGoestotheMovies 227

foundedin 1934,broughttheeconomicthreatofmassboycottsinto
play againstHollywood'sdelinquencies. The appointment ofJoseph
Breenas Code enforcer ensuredthatsinwouldno longerbe depicted
on thescreenas desirable,sexwouldnotbe depictedin detail,and no
crimewould ultimatelygo unpunished.Althoughstudiesof the
emergenceof an effective, Catholic-instigated nationalprogramof
filmsupervisionhave appeared over the years,one of the most
thoroughgoing is Gregory Black'sCatholic CrusadeagainsttheMovies.
Blackarguesthatnotonlydid theLegionofDecencyratefilms, which
itclaimedtobe itsexclusivefunction, butalso in effect exercisedpre-
releasecensorship bydemandingchangesthatwouldensurefilmsof
ratingsthat would permitCatholicaudiencesto attendthemin good
conscience.6Black is indocumenting
effective thisclashbetweenclaim
and actuality, his
although argument that the Legion'sexerciseofde
factocensorship powerprecludedHollywood from anyseriousexam-
inationofsocialand moralissuesmaybe somewhatexaggerated.
The remarkable ofLegionpressureon thecon-
effectiveness
tentoffilmsfromtheearlythirties untilthemid-fifties, whenstudios
beganfirst tochallengeand thenignoretheCode,is paralleledbythe
remarkable wayinwhichCatholicthemesbegantobe portrayed dur-
ing thisera in whichfilmproduction was dominatedin theUnited
Statesby themajorHollywoodstudiosand thestarswhose careers
theyautocratically controlled. Theyear1928had beendisastrousfor
theCatholicpublicimage,whenthecandidacyofAl Smith,thefirst
memberofthatfaithto be nominatedforthepresidency, wentdown
in flamesdue in parttopressuresnotonlyfromtherevivedKlanbut
frommorerespectable Protestant clergyas well.Beginning withPat
O'Brienin the1938filmAngelswithDirtyFaces,however,a new Hol-
lywoodicon,the"heropriest,"beganto displacetheoldernativist
stereotype of the Catholicclericas a subversiveVaticanagentof
doubtfulmorals.7SpencerTracy(BoysTown,1938),BingCrosby(Go-
ingMy Way,1944),and even FrankSinatra(TheMiracleoftheBells,
1948)all playedsubsequentavatarsofthisnew additiontothereper-
toryof stockfigures.As CharlesMorrisnotes,the Catholicchurch
duringthisera of increasing pluralismand decliningconfidence in
traditionalmoralnormspresented itselfas a newguardianofnational
morality.8Catholicstatushad rapidlychangedfromsubversiveto
exemplary.
The erosionofthepoweroftheLegionand theCode during
the1950'swas paralleledbya newwave offilms, suchas TheMoonIs
Blue(1953)and BabyDoll (1956),in whichsexualthemesweredealt
with openly and in which the victoryof good over evil in conven-
tional termswas no longerinevitable.The self-critical
spiritthatwas

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:13:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
228 ReligionandAmerican
Culture

fermenting in theAmericanCatholiccommunity duringthesamepe-

riodand validatedby VaticanII duringtheearly1960'salso helped
pave theway forfilmsin whichCatholicclergywereno longerde-
pictedheroically, thoughnotnecessarilyany morerealistically: The
Verdict (1982), Mass Appeal(1984), Priest(1994),and, mostnotoriously,
TheExorcist (1973).Therisetoprominence ofItalian-American auteur
directors suchas FrancisFordCoppolaand MartinScorsese(a some-
timeseminarian) in the1970'salso broughttobeara different ethnic
Catholicperspective in a mediaworldin whichIrish"assimilationist
heroes"had previously helda virtualmonopolyon Catholicidentity.9
Thissensibility is evidencedin thememorable sequenceinCoppola's
TheGodfather (1981), in which the camera cutsback and forthbetween
scenesof a Catholicbaptismand theviolentelimination ofa whole
seriesoflafamiglia's enemies.'0
The relationship ofJewsand JudaismtoAmericanfilmis,in
someways,parallelto thatofCatholicsand,in others,a sortofcom-
plementary opposite.In theearlyyearsofthemedium,themajority
ofCatholicsand Jewswereimmigrants, ortheirchildren,and as such
the objectof fearand ridiculeby less recentlyarrivedAmericans.
"Russian"JewsandIrishCatholicsweresometimes linkedtogether in
filmssuchas CohenandMurphy (1910)and a wholeseriesbeginning
withTheCohensandKellys(1926)."Althoughthefilmindustry pro-
videdcareeropportunities formanyEuropeanminority groupmem-
bers,withpredictablename changes(JohnGarfinkel becameJohn
Garfield, forexample),Jewswereuniquein theirvirtualdominance
oftheproduction ofmotionpictures through thestudiosystem begin-
ning in the 1910's. Where Catholics aggressively soughtto ensure
positiveportrayals of theirown clergy, however,Jewishproducers
progressively shied away from callingattentiontotheirowncommu-
nity at all, especially with therise of Europeananti-Semitism in the
1930's.Wherethe twentieshad aboundedin Jewish-themed films
concernedwith"makingit"outoftheghetto, theassimilationist
mo-
tifsoundedin TheJazzSinger(1927)-the first"talkie"-and Abie's
IrishRose(1928)foreshadowed a disappearanceofJewsas recogniz-
able characters by the mid-thirties.'2
By the 1970's,however,anothertransformation, parallelto
thatoccurring in Catholiccircles,tookplace in therepresentation of
JewishthemesinAmericanfilmas well.Bythelate1940's,reactionto
theHolocaustresultedin theproduction of"problemfilms"dealing
with anti-Semitism,notably Gentlemen's Agreement of 1947. Its mes-
sage of all Americansas "brothersunder the skin" echoed thethemes
of many combat movies of the forties.'3Exodus(1960) introducedthe
theme of the Jew as heroic freedom-fighter; The Pawnbroker (1965)

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:13:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReligionGoestotheMovies 229

dealt openly with the Holocaust and its legacy; The Fixer (1968)
adapted BernardMalamud's tale of Russian anti-Semitism;and Fid-
dleron theRoof(1971) provided a canonical sentimentalmusical inter-
pretation of shtetl life. Mel Brooks's good-natured spoofs of film
genres,beginningwith YoungFrankenstein (1974), revived the Marx
Brothers'traditionof Vaudeville and BorschtBelt Yiddish-flavored
humorin which theinstitutionsof the dominantGentilesocietywere
skewered by the perennial Jewish outsiders, now portrayed by
identifiablyJewishactors such as Madeline Kahn, Marty Feldman,
Gene Wilder,and Brooks (nee Kaminsky)himself.However, thispe-
riod, which has been called the "second golden age" forJewson the
screen,was also one in which Jewsthemselvesbecame involved in a
much more criticalportrayalof their own American experience.'4
Woody Allen's series of comedies featuringhimselfas a classically
Jewishneuroticmade fun of Jewsand Gentilesalike (memorablyin
Hannah and Her Sisters[1986],in which Allen's characterhilariously
contemplatesconversion to Catholicism). Screen versions of Philip
Roth's scathing Goodbye,Columbus(1969) and Portnoy'sComplaint
(1972),however,revivedin bitterways stereotypesofthespoiled Jew-
ish AmericanPrincessand the suffocatingJewishMotherwhich had
been portrayedmore sympathetically in earlierfilmssuch as Marjorie
Morningstar (1958)." Jews,like Catholics, seeminglynow feltsecure
enough to mount public criticisms of their own communitiesforthe
broader filmaudience to witness.
AlthoughJewsand Catholics alike achieved visibilityin the
world ofHollywood,bothas participantsand as characters(to thepoint
of both positive and negative stereotyping),Protestantismas a cul-
turalphenomenonhas been nearlyinvisibleon thescreen."Mainline"
Protestantismespecially has surfacedvery rarely:a filmsuch as The
Bishop's Wife (1947)-presumably Episcopalian (and certainlynot
Catholic)-is one exception that proves the rule. (It was remade in
1996 in AfricanAmericanguise as The Preacher'sWife.)Conservative
Protestantismhas seldom been treatedsympathetically-ElmerGan-
tryand InherittheWind(both 1960) are cases in point-although Rob-
ertDuvall's TheApostle(1997) is a possible recentexception.'6Given
the absence of sympatheticdepiction in films,it is perhaps not sur-
prisingthatconservativeEvangelicals have chosen both to demonize
Hollywood in the politicalrhetoricof the New Rightand also to pro-
duce theirown films,withthemessuch as "the Rapture.""7
Mainline Protestantism has been largelyinvisiblein filmsnot,
most likely,because of Hollywood's antipathybut because, for de-
cades, it blended in so smoothlywith the main currentsof American
culturethatitwas difficult to notice.(It took GarrisonKeillor,afterall,

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:13:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
230 ReligionandAmerican
Culture

to makeLutheranssexy.)A possiblefilmicanaloguewiththis"main-
line"mightbe thebiblicalspectaculars thatemergedearlyin thehis-
of
tory Hollywood as a nascent genre and thatreacheda sortofapo-
theosiswithCecilB. DeMille'ssecondgo at TheTenCommandments in
1956,a timewhenBillyGraham'scrusadesmarkeda temporary ac-
commodation betweenEvangelicalism and the"mainline."DeMille,
thesonofa one-time aspirant to the Episcopalpriesthood, was byno
meanstheonlydirector ofbiblicalspectaculars, buthis singularlon-
gevity and combinationof idealism and cynicismhas forever
identified his namewithone ofthefewgenresin whichreligionand
Hollywoodhaveprovencongenialbedfellows.'8
GeraldForshey's American ReligiousandBiblical Spectacularsis
the most thorough-going attempt to chronicle and interpret this
genre,althoughthereaderwillneed patienceto followhimthrough
histask.Thebookis maddeningly disorganized and confusingly and
but
awkwardlywritten, perseverance does ultimately in
pay off a
provocativeand well-documented argument.Forsheyarguesthat
biblicallythemedfilms, whichgo backin theUnitedStatesat leastto
thefirstof manyversionsof Quo Vadisin 1901,wererootedin the
nineteenth-century genresofstagemelodramas and whathe identifies
as "quasi-religious novels,"suchas BenHur,thesecondofwhichoften
providedthe basis forthe first.19 The biblicalspectacular,distin-
guishedbyitsrelianceon epicscopetechnically realizedthrough cin-
ematiceffects suchas theboomshot,was thedistinctive Hollywood
takeon thistradition: thegenrethatemergedwas characterized by
melodramatic interest focusing ontheconflict betweena villaindriving
the actionand a hero who mustdecide betweendutyand either
powerorpleasure.Actualreligiousfigures, suchas JesusortheApos-
tles,werenotusuallythemainprotagonists but,rather,providedcon-
textforestablishing theactionas occurring in illotemporeand,there-
fore,potentially archetypal. These melodramas were furtherintended
as, ifnotromans h clef,at leasteasily read analogues with theissuesof
the day,such as theDepression,theriseof thegreatdictatorships,
and,eventually, theCold War.20
The persistent themethatForsheyfollowsfromthe 1930's
through the 1960's, and thatDeMillein particular nurtured,was the
clashbetweenwholesomeruralvalues and decadenturbanmores.21
This themeoriginatedas a conservativetake on the Depression,
whichcouldthusbe attributed notto impersonal socialforcesor the
failureofgovernment toplayan activerolein an overlyindividualis-
tic economic structurebut, rather,to Americans' succumbingto the
lureofurbanwiles overruralvirtue.Rome,ofcourse,servedas thepar-
adigm of urban corruption,and Nero, as the shadow of Naziism be-

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:13:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReligionGoestotheMovies 231

gan to overtakeEurope,becametheprototype ofthemad dictator.

In
theensuingCold War period,DeMille as a
emerged supporter theof
Hollywood"Blacklist" and a conservativeactivist
who foreshadowed
thelaterpoliticalcareerofhis own star,CharltonHeston.22Forshey
reads TheTenCommandments, DeMille's 1956remakeofhis original
1923production, as a Cold Warallegoryin whichthemajorthemes
arethesuperiority offaithtoreasonand freedom toslavery.23
Moses,
thehero,is simultaneously castas an intuitive ofnatural
interpreter
two vil-
law as well as an incipientcapitalist.There are, significantly,
lains:RamsesthePharaohis theprototypical whileDathan
tyrant,
theeven moreinsidious"enemywithin."In bothcases,
represents
they fail because of their materialisticself-preoccupation,and the
scenein whichRamses'forcesare overwhelmedby theRed Sea re-
mainsone ofthegreatmomentsoftechtiical in theHolly-
virtuosity
wood canon.24 The moral,of course,is thatdivine providencecan be
on theside of thosewho keep thefaith:if
countedon to intervene
America remainstrueto its mission,the forcesof Communism,with-
out and within,will ultimatelybe defeated.
ofthe1950'swerenotsimplyliteral-
Thebiblicalspectaculars
isticinterpretationsof Scriptureserved up withstunningtechnicalef-
fectsin the serviceof conservativeideology.Forsheyalso argues pro-
thattheyhad at leasttwoulterior
vocatively thatpromoted
functions
a sound bottomline. First,theiruse ofwidescreentechniqueswas one
technicalgratificationthat the emergentrival medium of television
Second,at a timewhentheProduction
couldnotoffer. Code was still
in force,biblical spectacularsprovided a genrein which sex and vio-
lence could be maximallyemployed in a good cause. Sin,presumably,
and luridlyas possiblein orderto
had to be presentedas alluringly
emphasize the temptationsfaced by the heroes and the risksof mar-
tyrdominvolved in embracingthe true cause. Since God triumphed
in theend,themeanswerejustified.
The collapseoftheCode by the
end of the fiftiesundercutthis rationale,and the genrerapidly sank
into desuetude. Later biblicallythemedfilms,such as JohnHuston's
TheBible(1966),theAndrewLloyd Webber-Tim
Rice musicalJesus
Christ,Superstar(1973), Franco Zeffirelli'sminiseriesJesusofNazareth
(1977), and Martin Scorsese's oft-picketedversion of Nikos Kazant-
zakis' LastTemptation
ofChrist(1988),all had verydifferent
aesthetic
and theologicalagendas and, in general,did not do particularlywell
at thebox office.
Thedeclineofthetheologically
naive(ordisingenuous)
bibli-
cal spectacular
and thecomingofcritical
age oftheCatholic
and Jew-
ish communities coincidedwitha briefflourishing
of Neoorthodox
Protestantismin which cultureas well as societybecame a legitimate

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:13:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
232 ReligionandAmerican
Culture

focus of theological attention,analysis, and criticism.Paul Tillich's

Theology ofCulture(1959) was, of course,a crucialtexthere,and some
of the approaches developed by Amos Wilder,PrestonRoberts,Giles
Gunn, and othersforthe studyof religionand literaturebecame eas-
ily translatable,at least at a superficiallevel, to that of othermedia
such as filmas well. The problemwith a purelytheologicalapproach
to filmis thatit can readilylapse intofacileattemptseither,optimisti-
cally,to see Christianimages and meaningsin doubtfultextsor,pessi-
mistically,to pass moraljudgmentin the styleof theold Code. Exam-
ples of the formerpitfallcan be found in JohnR. May's edited work,
Imageand Likeness,in which "Casablanca... epitomizes the Jewish-
Christianvirtueof altruism-self-denying,sacrificiallove," and Gone
withtheWindembodies the quintessentialcinematicrepresentation of
fundamentalhope. "Afterall," Scarlettremindsus in the film'sfinal
memorableline, "tomorrowis anotherday."25
The problemwithtoo easy a transitionfromthereligiouscrit-
icism of literature-whichitselfcan easily lapse intothe simplisticor
opaque-is thatthe process of filmmakingand its subsequent study
and criticismis intrinsicallymultilayered.It includes aspects of tex-
tual analysis similar to other sorts of literaryinterpretation, since
filmsare based on screenplayswhich in turnare oftenadapted from
novels,plays,or otherformallyliterarytexts,and theprocessof adap-
tationat each stage can be quite revealing.The question of authorship
herebecomes problematic,since thedirector-frequentlystyledas au-
teur,thecreativeartistresponsibleforthetotalityof a film-has a ma-
jor hand in translatingwords to the screen as well as in the editing
process,or montage. Individual actors,technicians,and producersalso
play significantroles in establishingthefinishedproduct,as may out-
side agents, such as governmentbureaus and religious and other
pressure groups. Filmmakingalso has profoundlymaterial dimen-
sions,rangingfromthekind offilmstockand camerasused in record-
ing action to the economics of productionand distribution.Finally,
the finishedproduct is received, both by criticsand by general audi-
ences, and theirreactionsmay have both political and commercial
consequences. Although the study of literaturehas, in recentyears,
begun to take into account such issues as receptionas well, filmnev-
erthelessstands as an extremelycomplicatedsubjectforproperstudy.
The remainingthreeworks under review here all attemptto
address these issues fromvaryingangles and with ambiguous suc-
cess. BernardBrandon Scott,in HollywoodDreamsand BiblicalStories,
draws heavilyon both Claude Levi-Straussand Marshall McLuhan as
well as on his own discipline,biblical criticism,to provide a concep-
tual frameworkforhis subsequent critiqueofAmericanpopular film.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:13:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReligionGoestotheMovies 233

He spendswhatis probablyan excessiveamountoftimein attempt-

ing to linkchangesin religiousparadigmswithsimilarshiftsin the
mediaofcommunications, and hissuggestion
thattelevisionevange-
listsrepresent
a newdominantparadigm-thecontemporary equiva-
lentofthewritten wordofScripture or theprintedtextsoftheRefor-
mation-isnotobviouslyconfirmed bythe"Preachergate" debacleof
the 1980's.26His argumentfromLevi-Straussthatfilmgenresare the
equivalentof theoral mythsofnonliterateculturesis morepersua-
sive,and ittapsintoa cinematic
distinctively approachtothestudyof
Scott that like
film.27 suggests genres, myths, providea tacitresolution
of logicallyirreconcilableculturalcontradictionswhichlose theirper-
suasive forceonce theirinternaldynamicsare expressedmore discur-
sively.28As an antidote to what he sees as the moral deficienciesof
genrelogic,he proposes a dialogue between contemporaryfilmsand
New Testamentparallels: the Prodigal Son narrative,for example,
provides a plausible alternativeto the resolutionof conflictsthrough
violencethatis intrinsic to "theHero" paradigmthatrunsthroughWest-
erns and otheractiongenres.29
Like Scott,MargaretMiles, a studentof religiousart,also has
an explicitlydidacticpurpose withinthe Christianframeworkin her
Seeingand Believing.(Bothworks are distributedby denominationally
affiliatedpublishersand are presumablyintended,at least in part,for
churchaudiences.) Like Scott also, she takes as a startingpoint the
premisethatHollywood filmsare touchstonesforcontemporarycul-
tural dilemmas or contradictions,and theiranalysis can provide a
useful point of departurein exposing both the natureof these prob-
lems as well as theadequacy ofthesolutionsthatpopular culturepro-
vides forthem.Miles is veryintentionalin her layingout of the pur-
pose and method of her book. Her focus is specificallyon popular
Americanfilmsof the past decade or so thatdeal with explicitlyreli-
gious themes,and she examinesthemas to how well theyconformto
what she sets out as proper normativestandards,which forher in-
volve how accuratelyand empathetically"outsiders"are represented.
Some may findthisinterpretation ofreligionratherconfining, but she
is at least straightforward about it.In fact,theentirebook is extremely
straightforward, in good and not so good ways. She also explicitlyin-
vokes themethodsof culturalstudies in addressinga filmin its entire
context,including criticaland audience reaction,which is consistent
with takingcinema on its own terms;in fact,she includes an appen-
dix in which the questions raised by this method are clearly delin-
eated. (She mightprofitablyhave reflecteda bit here on the compati-
bilitybetween the usually materialistassumptionsof culturalstudies
withChristiantheology.)She is also veryintentionalin her use offilm

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:13:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
234 ReligionandAmerican
Culture

studiesconceptsand terminology so thattheworkservesnicelyas an

introduction tohow toreada filmfortheuninitiated.
Seeingand Believing's mainproblemis its relentless earnest-
ness, which resultsin periodic intrusions of moralisticlectures.Miles
interrupts her discussionof Thelma and Louise for
(1991), example,to
delivera homilyon thevirtuesofpracticing safesex(whichthefilm's
protagonists, alas,did notalwaysdo), and expresseswhatare admi-
rableenoughsentiments in abstract,lifelessprose,e.g.,"Thevictims
ofostracism, and
marginalization, oppressioncan revealthehuman
costsofsociety'ssuccesses."30 One redeeming noteofhumoremerges
in hertitlingthechapterthatdeals withapocalypticism "ThereIs a
Bombin Gilead."The samechapter, however, suffersfrom an impre-
cision as to the specificsof conservative Protestant theologyand
as
structure, expressed, to cite one in a
instance, confusion between
New Age and Fundamentalist concepts, whichmaybe inherent inthe
filmunderdiscussionbutis notclarified by theauthor.It maybe a
low blow to suggestthatthe authorhas unintentionally "othered"
thosewho would be mostproneto takeissue withhertheological
stances.
Theothermaindifficulty withSeeingandBelieving arisesfrom
theauthor'simplicitdefinition of"true"religion, whichis expressed
inherinjunction that"Americans needfilmsthathelpus picturereli-
gious,racial,and culturaldiversity as irreducible and delightful."3'
Thisis hardtodisagreewith,and Mileshas generally donea goodjob
in explaining how a fallingbackon theconventions ofgenreinmany
of thefilmsshe discussesgetsin theway of encountering religious
and culturalsubstance.(Itis something ofa criticaltruismthatgenre
has becomevirtually inherent infilmbutthatthebestfilmsachievea
level of self-consciousness aboutand criticism oftheconventions of
thesamegenreswhichtheyat anotherlevelexemplify.) Tooexclusive
a focuson whatamountstosocialethics,however, can getin theway
ofaddressingissuesofreligiousexperience in othercontexts.Her cit-
ingofMy DinnerwithAndre(1981),an admirableenoughfilm,as an
exemplarydepictionof implicitly religiousissues does raise some
questionsabouthow farherdefinition ofreligionextends.32 It is also
unfortunate thatshe does not discuss,forexample,JohnHuston's
screenadaptationof FlanneryO'Connor'sWiseBlood(1979)or (im-
possiblegivenherpublicationdate) such recentfilmsas Dead Man
Walking (1995),TheSpitfire Grill(1995),and TheApostle(1997),all of
whichdeal in provocative fashionwiththethemeofreligioustrans-
formationin veryexplicitways.
ScreeningtheSacred,edited by two religiousstudies scholars,
JoelMartinand Conrad Oswalt, is the firstmajor attemptsince John

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:13:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReligionGoestotheMovies 235

R. May and MichaelBird'sadmirablecollection, Religion in Film,to

deal seriouslywithquestionsofhow to interpret filmin a way that
takesbothreligionand film(and theirrespective study)seriouslyas
distinctive of
categories expression.33 The ten interpretive essaysin-
cludedhereare dividedintothreeunits,reflecting whatMartinand
Oswalt label as theological,mythological,and ideological ap-
proachesto filmcriticism. The firsttwosectionsworkverywell on
theirown terms.The theologicalcriticsaim at discerning Christian
motifsin ostensibly"secular"filmssuch as Psycho(1960),Platoon
(1986),and Ironweed (1967).In thelattertwocases,authorialand/or
directorialintentionality is easy enoughto discern.Whether Alfred
Hitchcock'soeuvre(thoughHitchcockis admittedly Jesuit-educated)
can be profitably submitted to thistreatment, however,raisessome
interestingquestions,althoughtheauthor, LarryE. Grimes,givesita
good try.Similarly, applyingmythicalcategoriesto StarWarsis not
veryrisky, given director Lucas's own statements on his influences.
Morearresting is JaniceHockerRushing'sfeminist readingofAlien
(1979) and its sequel, Aliens (1986),in the context of a wide-ranging
mythological framework. one
Although might raise questionsabout
particularpoints of her broad canvas, she makes a provocativecri-
tiqueofthefilms'"message"through herlocating in twoseparate
it
and conflicting mythicframeworks. This essay alone is worththe
priceofadmission.
WhereasthefirsttwounitsofScreening theSacredarelargely
successful,thethirdrapidlybreaksdown intoconfusion. The rela-
tionshipbetween"religion"and "ideology"is problematic in itself,
and the threeessays includedheredo not inspireconfidence. The
a readingofSylvester
first, Stallone'sRocky series,makessomevalid
pointsaboutthepatterns ofimageryand uses ofsoundinthesefilms,
butitgetsonto(dareonesay?)rockygroundearlyon intrying toread
too muchintotheevidence.The authorreflects, forexample,on the
name"Sylvester Stallone"and proposesan associationwiththefolk-
loricsilvestre,
orwildman,ofmedievalfolklore.34 Myguessis that,for
most film-nurtured viewers,includingmyself,the name is more
likelyto evokea large,black-and-white pussycatin eternal,fruitless
pursuitofa canary.The two remaining essays,on BlueVelvet (1986)
and Nineanda HalfWeeks(1986)respectively, can onlybe considered
germaneto the collection'sbroaderthemesif religionis definedas
anything thatdealswith"seriousissues,"a debasingofTillich'snotion
of "ultimateconcern"and a seemingreduction ofthewholeconcept
into incoherence.Neither essay inspires a great deal of confidence
throughthe descent of both into criticaljargon,oftenapproaching,if
not parody,at least bricolageso extremethatthe authorialvoices and

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:13:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
236 ReligionandAmerican
Culture

ostensiblesubjectsare submergedin quotationsfromthe all-too-

familiarpanoplyofEuropeantheorists.
The editorsdo addresstheseissuesofdefinition in theintro-
and
ductory concludingsections, although not in an entirely satisfac-
torymanner.Theyare certainly on targetin theirstresson dealing
withthereligiousimplications offilmwithinbroadculturaland inter-
pretive frameworks and not simplyfromthestandpoint ofChristian
theology. They arealso in
rightenough suggesting that, an ostensi-
in
bly secular twentieth-century society,organizedreligionhas lost
whateverhegemonyitmightoncehave exercisedin shapingworld-
viewsand thatevenAmericanswithformalreligiousaffiliations are
exposedtoand influenced byotherculturalinstitutions in a wideva-
rietyofways.(The symbiotic and ambivalent relationship ofProtes-
tantEvangelicalsto mediaculturewouldbe worthexploring further
in thiscontext.)It is also usefulto demonstrate the-structural and
functionalparallelsbetween religiousritualsand othercultural
forms-forexample,attending a movie.However,theeditorspush
veryclosetosuggesting that,becausesomething closelyresembles reli-
gion,it thereforeis religion.35
Whattakesplace at a Catholicmass is
notin someimportant wayswhatgoes on at a baseballstadium,al-
though the resemblances maybe interesting and significant. Either
"religion"and "ritual"referto relatedbutdistinguishable phenom-
ena,orwe shoulddroptheformer wordfromthelanguage.Similarly,
"religion"and "ethics"are closelyrelatedbut also notidentical.To
privilegeethicalbehavioras thecentralemphasisinone'stheologyis
perfectly legitimatebutto carrythatemphasisoverintotheanalysis
ofreligiousphenomenais similarly to blursomeimportant concep-
tual distinctionsthatare necessaryheuristicaids in identifying and
dealing with religiousphenomena.
As longas we continuetoparticipate in contemporary Amer-
icancultureand itsinstitutions, including the academic and the reli-
gious, we can hardly avoid close encounters with the movies, even
though,as a NewYorker reviewerrecently characterized thefirstStar
Wars"prequel,"muchofthefruit ofHollywoodis crap.36 Themovies
arebothomnipresent and infinitelyaccessible:as theworksunderre-
viewhave amplydemonstrated, theyinviteresponsefromviewersat
a widevarietyoflevels.Theuse ofa filmtoprovokediscussionofre-
ligiousor historicalthemesin classor to evokeethicalreflection in a
churchgroupcanbe donewithsomeprofit at a relatively low levelof
sophistication.However,like religion,filmhas a complexinternal
logic of its own, and filmcriticshave developed an extensive and
unique vocabulary to express that logic. The best discourse on reli-
gion and filmtakesplace when its participantshave acquired a work-

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:13:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 GoestotheMovies
Religion 237

ingknowledgeofbothvocabularies.Then,armedwiththerelevant
termsand concepts,theycan literallysee more,and reflectmoreupon
thatseeing, than those who are oblivious to the constituentelements
of mythor montage.All of thebooks under discussion reflectsome of
thatcriticalawareness,and most are marredto some degree by an in-
sufficiency of conceptualclarity.We can hope thatfurtherscholarship
in this area will discern and respectboth the similaritiesand differ-
ences in the study of religionand of filmand will continueto bring
the two intoprofitablejuxtaposition.37

Notes
1. Fora somewhatdifferent
takeon severalofthesesameworks,see
MarkHulsether, Out theRelationships
"Sorting amongChristian Values,US
and
PopularReligion, Hollywood Films," Studies
Religious Review
25,no. 1
1999):3-11(withextensive
(January bibliography).
2. Miles,SeeingandBelieving,
6.
3. Les andBarbaraKeyser, andtheCatholic
Hollywood Church:
TheIm-
age of RomanCatholicismin American
Movies(Chicago:Loyola University
Press,1984),2.
4. Martinand Ostwalt,Screening
theSacred,
155.
5. See J.Hoberman,"WhentheSpiceofChoiceWasSin,"NewYork
August15,1999,Artsand Entertainment
Times, 9, 18.
section,
6. See also,e.g.,Paul W.Facey,TheLegionofDecency:A Sociological
oftheEmergence
Analysis andDevelopmentofa SocialPressure
Group(NewYork:
ArnoPress,1974);and FrankWalsh,SinandCensorship: TheCatholic Church
andtheMotionPictureIndustry(New Haven:YaleUniversity Press,1996).
7. Keyser, andtheCatholic
Hollywood 62.
Church,
8. CharlesR. Morris,American
Catholic:
TheSaintsandSinnersWho
BuiltAmerica'sMost PowerfulChurch(New York:RandomHouse/Times
Books,1997),chap.8.
9. Keyser,Hollywoodand theCatholicChurch,97. See also Paula M.
Kane,"American CatholicCulturein theTwentieth Century," in Perspectives
onAmericanReligionandCulture,ed. PeterW. Williams(Malden,Mass.,and
U.K.:Blackwell,
Oxford, 1999),400-401.
10. See JohnR. May,"TheGodfather Films,"in ImageandLikeness:
Visions
Religious inAmericanFilmClassics,
ed. JohnR. May(NewYork:Paulist
Press,1992),68-69.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:13:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
238 Religion Culture
andAmerican

11. Patricia Erens, TheJewin AmericanCinema(Bloomington:Indi-

ana UniversityPress, 1984), 33-42. Erens provides a thoroughchronicleand
set of plot summariesof Jewishthemesin Americanfilm,as does LesterD.
Friedman,Hollywood'sImageoftheJew(New York:Ungar,1982). Eitherbook
may profitablybe read in parallel with Keyser,Hollywoodand theCatholic
Church.
12. Erens,TheJewin AmericanCinema,91, 102,135.
13. Ibid., 177.
14. Ibid., 255, 286, and passim.
15. Ibid., 276.
16. WalterGoodman, "Survival of theFittest,in Hollywood and the
Heartland,"New YorkTimes,August 25, 1999,B2.
17. See Randall Balmer,Mine EyesHave SeentheGlory:A Journey
into
the EvangelicalSubculturein America(New York: Oxford UniversityPress,
1989),chap. 3.
127.
18. Forshey,AmericanReligiousand BiblicalSpectaculars,

19. Ibid., 4.
20. Ibid., 5-7 and passim.
21. Ibid., 13.
22. Ibid., 125,131.

23. Ibid., 128.

24. Ibid., 130-31.
25. May,ed., Imageand Likeness,119,156.
26. Scott,HollywoodDreamsand BiblicalStories,283.
27. See StuartM. Kaminsky,AmericanFilmGenres,2d ed. (Chicago:
Nelson-Hall, 1985),fora usefulintroductionto genretheoryin theAmerican
context.
28. Scott,HollywoodDreamsand BiblicalStories,11-13.
29. Ibid., chap. 3.
30. Miles, Seeingand Believing,147, 155.
31. Ibid., 191.
32. Ibid., 192.

33. JohnR. May and Michael Bird,eds., Religionin Film(Knoxville:

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:13:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReligionGoestotheMovies 239

Universityof Tennessee Press, 1982). Bird's introductoryessay, "Film as Hi-

erophany,"is somethingof a classic of its kind.
34. Joel W. Martin, "Redeeming America: Rockyas Ritual Racial
Drama," in ScreeningtheSacred,ed. Martinand Ostwalt,128.
35. For example,Screening
theSacred,ed. Martinand Oswalt, vii and
158.

36. AnthonyLane, "StarBores,"New Yorker,

May 24, 1999,84.
37. For some general books on filmand filmin the United States,
see: JamesMonaco, How toRead a Film:TheArt,Technology, Language,History,
and TheoryofFilmand Media (New York:OxfordUniversityPress,1981); Lary
May, ScreeningOut thePast: TheBirthofMass Cultureand theMotionPictureIn-
dustry(New York: OxfordUniversityPress, 1980); and RobertSklar,Movie-
Made America:A CulturalHistoryof AmericanMovies (New York: Vintage,
1994).

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:13:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions