|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 20, 2015 16:24:55 GMT -8
Elsewhere, asaph wrote:
I think this is a great new topic, and I hope to comment on it soon. But anyone else who is interested can jump right in. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 23, 2015 14:33:50 GMT -8
I wouldn't describe acting as synonymous with lying. First off, acting is generally done in an environment where the players and the viewers are fully aware that acting is taking place. Do you think it's lying for kids to pretend to be astronauts? If so, I fear for your kids  It's not lying... it's pretending.
It depends on what the reason for "portraying evil" is. Is it to glorify evil or to expose evil for what it is? Sometimes looking at things from the perspective of an "evil" character helps us develop compassion and sometimes gives us insights into how to counteract the evil. I'll grant that a Christian who is an actor needs to be very sensitive to the Holy Spirit as far as how the roles they take on personally affect them, but I don't think the same rules/ boundaries apply to everyone. It's a matter of conscience.
I agree that it is impossible to correctly and accurately portray the sinless, spotless, Son of God. But then again, it's impossible to fully understand or communicate perfectly about Him as well. So, we do our best and acknowledge we have limitations. Jesus and the prophets weren't afraid to use metaphors for God that were far from being fully accurate depictions, in order to communicate just one or two basic facts about who God is.
Especially trying to portray events that took place 2000 years ago from basic, scant written scenes. That is what I feel is the danger of fantasy in particular and Hollywood in general. The written word allows the reader to conceptualize. The visual movie/tv program is someone else's conceptualization of something. The filter of the Holy Spirit is not there. Hollywood could not care less about the Holy Spirit. The industry is an abyss of glorified sin, constantly pushing the envelope of immorality on screen.
Again, if the standard is perfection, of course a movie can never capture all the historical details or ensure we come away with the correct version of "how it really was". But, neither can the written word. Actually, even if we were to transport ourselves back to bible events via a time machine, there is still soooo much we'd miss. What is a poor, finite human to do? Well, we do our best with whatever medium and whatever knowledge we have, and humbly acknowledge it.
Who says the filter of the Holy Spirit is not there with a filmmaker who is seeking it? Who's also to say that the Holy Spirit cannot superintend His purpose into all sorts of works of art, regardless of the author's original intent?
Didn't see Noah or the Moses movie, and really have no desire based on the reviews. As a lover of the Chronicles of Narnia, of course I find the books deeper and more profound, but I still saw a lot of that shine through the film versions, which were overseen by C.S. Lewis' stepson. Those stories were not meant to be strict analogies of the Bible, but stories which parallel many of the deepest themes of scripture nonetheless. Some watching/ reading the Narnia stories will automatically make the connection to Jesus (it's pretty blatant in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe), but others, especially children, will rather simply register elements of the story as evoking spiritual longing, which can always return to the seeker of truth later on with big dividends. Lewis saw this work as preparing hearts and minds to long for deeper spiritual truths.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Mar 24, 2015 5:16:42 GMT -8
I understand Bill O'Reilly has written a book about Christ which the History Channel has made into a movie or documentary or something. I saw this morning a Muslim has been cast in the role of Christ. Seriously?
I will not watch this presentation for reasons stated and some not stated.
I have faith that God's word is inspired and correct in what God wants to say to humanity. I believe the mind aided by the Holy Spirit can see truth if they want to from the sacred writings. If God wanted to include accurate pictures and various details of cultures necessary to understanding the truth in His word He would have seen to it they were included. They are not. He must have a reason. The secret things belong unto God but, that which has been revealed is for us and our children forever.
I have no knowledge of how C.S. Lewis' writings have effected non-believers. I've read the Screwtape Letters. Interesting but, not Scripture. I do draw a stark and infinitely marked contrast between what inspired prophets and biblical authors used as allegory and metaphor to illustrate truth and what uninspired writers use, however effective it might seem.
I do not retract my statement about acting and lying. A child using their imagination to play and pretend to be an astronaut is not the same thing as an actor, adult or child, as a job, a profession, attempting to portray characters from history in as believable a way as possible, when they cannot do it, for they are not those persons. When people not under stress or emotional pressures keep their eyes open long enough to instill the physiological reaction of forming tears to make it seem they are crying to elicit a response from an audience, and a response is forthcoming, yes, I call that lying, regardless of intentions.
When an audience can have real, physical reactions to that which is fake, totally fake, I have to call it dangerous. Allowing something like movies to gain control of our faculties is something mankind is paying a price for, as it slips more and more into desires for fantasy instead of reality, to deal with its stresses and problems. Churches have gone to entertaining to draw a congregation. Standards once held by almost all denominations and believers have fallen by the wayside. We have gone from "Frankly Scarlett I don't give a damn," which caused gasps in that day (my parents included), to an industry which portrays every species of evil and abomination as normal and to be accepted, and society, Christian society, by and large, has fallen for much of it.
The church now is where the world used to be. I have to conclude Hollywood has contributed immensely to that situation.
Call me old fashioned, strait-laced, extreme, whatever. So be it. Solving real issues and problems in 42 minutes or a couple hours, is not reality. Changing scenes every three of four seconds is not reality. There is a huge difference between the effects on soul and spirit of biblical truth and Hollywood's portrayal of anything. I might ask, would you have gone to see Crowe and Bale in their roles if reviews of the movies were better? Christians reviewers have gone to telling people just how many times the Lord's name is taken in vein, how much sexual content, how many murders, how many whatever to tell their readers how safe a movie is. Have mercy, that is just so revealing as to where the church is now. If it is ALL pretending, what does it matter?
In the world, not of it. Christ is coming for a clean church, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; not a dirty church, compromised and corrupted by the standards of the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 4, 2015 17:54:38 GMT -8
I think it's patently demonstrable that there are tons of things in Scripture, which, apart from outside historical knowledge you would have little or no understanding of no matter how many times you read the text. For that matter, the very limitation of language cuts against your point. If you don't know how to read Greek or English, translated from the original Greek, you cannot understand much of Scripture- and that is not a gulf that the Holy Spirit is normally gonna miraculously bridge (for some very good reasons).
I don't think you adequately made a distinction between children's make-believe and adults acting.
The issue of churches catering too much to entertainment is a separate issue than whether acting is wrong. Acting can be totally okay in certain circumstances and it can still be true that the western church sometimes caters too much to entertainment. Acting and other forms of entertainment don't in and of themselves make the church cater too much to entertainment.
BTW, the theater as we know it was largely introduced by the Church in the middle ages as a way of conveying the content of the Bible to illiterate audiences. I don't understand how you can think that, if done well, was not a good thing.
Yes, I probably would have seen and enjoyed those movies in they had stuck more closely to the biblical narrative.
I'd also like to point out that the BIBLE itself has a lot of sexual content, murders, and taking of the Lord's name in vain. Such content is not inherently corrupting- it is only corrupting if it is glorified or if they viewer has a weak conscience.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaph on May 7, 2015 3:18:28 GMT -8
Wow, man, I have to say your impression of the word of God compared to the words of men, in all their effect and purpose, is alarming to me. Truly alarming. Yikes.
God has taken care of his word. He either dictated it or inspired it. Translation has never been a matter of serious concern to discern truth, save for agendas committed to changing truth, such as in Roman Catholic or other translations with doctrinal agendas to protect. If a person wants to know the truth they can study a Bible and find it out, even agenda driven translations. Commentaries and dictionaries, etc are nice. I love E-sword. They are not indispensable to understanding truth, though. How would you prove otherwise? How did anyone understand the truth before such aids were made available to people? Are you saying people need scholars to understand the truth?
I would ask for one doctrine contained in Scripture which I need outside sources to understand. BTW, why make that point and then make it against me in the America in prophecy thread? Prophecy concerns history. On the face of it outside sources become involved but, spiritual truth concerning salvation and daily living? I must needs ask to see an example of it. Don't need "tons," just one.
As far as the church in the middle ages, I might rest my case right there. Every species of problem in the church found an entrance during those times. They were dark ages for a reason.
If you believe unconverted actors can truthfully portray the holiest men and women that ever lived ... what can I say? I do not believe converted actors could do it, let alone unconverted ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaph on May 7, 2015 5:16:19 GMT -8
I feel compelled to state something else. Humans act. Most people act every, single day. They act emotionally stable when they are not. They act emotionally in ways opposite of the way they truly feel or think for various sociological and psychological reasons. It begins in childhood and progresses through life. The fact it is natural does not mean it is acceptable to the Father above or the principles of His kingdom. Whatsoever is true think on these things. That is the bottom line.
I have watched my share of modern entertainment but, I would never state, without biblical principle (which I cannot supply), that doing so can help my search for and understanding of truth; pure truth. No. Years of such sctivity stunted the search for pure truth and by beholding we become changed. It may be imperceptible but, it is a law of truth - by beholding we become changed. Continually behold Christ, the true Christ, in Scripture, and you will be changed. Behold the things of this world and you will be changed. Just the way it is.
As far as theater in the middle ages it has been my understanding that the theater, as a form of both instruction and/or entertainment, is a product of Greek culture, and Chinese. Whatever the middle ages borrowed, it borrowed from Greece and Rome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 26, 2015 21:41:43 GMT -8
Interesting, I just got back from Ashland, Oregon, having seen a few Shakespeare plays which I found very stimulating to my faith. Fascinating to me how differently we can see this.
I don't disagree that the things we imbibe have an effect on us, positive or negative. Or that we need to "behold Christ". It's just that WHEREVER the truth be found, there is Jesus. So we can potentially behold him in all sorts of places and in all sorts of media. Paul found truth in the pagan poets (Acts 17, case in point) , which is another way of saying he found hints there of the incarnate Word Who is the Truth. They may have been obscured, misunderstood, or intertwined with lies, but Paul obviously felt it was worth the time to find the gems and dust them off. He felt that their entertainment could indeed, with careful use, help his audience's "search for and understanding of truth".
Yes, but the Church took the art form (not evil in and of itself, though apparently you disagree) and utilized it ingeniously, as a tool to communicate the gospel.
No, I'm saying that the truth isn't always obvious at first blush. It often takes digging, work, "checking the facts".
Let's back up from doctrine for a sec, cuz I might say that there are parts about Justification and Resurrection that we can't understand well without historical context, but that might be opening too big a can of worms right now. How about just certain teachings? For instance, don't we need to know that Samaritans were despised before we can understand the point of the Good Samaritan story? Scripture doesn't lay that out for us, it was just assumed historical knowledge at the time it was written.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaph on May 27, 2015 6:05:35 GMT -8
"Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans." John 4:9
"Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" John 8:48
I do not believe it requires any outside knowledge to know the Jews despised the Samaritans. Understanding the parable of the good Samaritan can be fairly well understood without outside historical commentary.
To the subject of the thread, I have to conclude literature much different than acting. Literature may contain things which are truthful yet also dangerous to the soul. Someone may write a novel, a crime mystery, where a Bible verse is quoted, yet the entire book revolves around unconverted, wicked, rapscallions and degenerates. Hollywood is infamous for misusing, misquoting, and butchering Scripture. The fact that a verse in Revelation is quoted does not make a horror film something Christians should behold, does it?
That said, literature allows the individual mind to conjure up scenes. In film, scenes are conjured up by to bypass your own imagination, and then dialogue, even if true to a text it is taken from, can be spoken other than an author intended, and the speaker/actor isn't even actually going through anything happening on screen. It is all fake.
I am reminded of a scene I saw in one of those Baptist church movies. Fireproof, I recall the name of the film. In it there is a scene where the husband literally screams at his wife at the top of his lungs, right in her face, so much so the young lady acting the part of the wife actually looks scared. Now, it can be called acting because it is but, I thought to myself "Can that be good for Cameron to do?" To act like that? To make it look as real as possible? Can that be good for his soul? Can it be good for the young lady to act frightened, or was she actually frightened by the tirade, as though the cameras weren't there, no director, no other people around, and she became immersed into something she lost control of - her emotions?"
Another interesting point about that film was the ending. Rather than kiss the actress playing his wife Cameron had his real wife in the shot. Kissing another woman would be wrong, he believes. Indeed. So, is it really acting when all these men and women exchange passionate physical moments in film after film? Sorry, I do not believe it is acting, at all. In old B&W films you can see many times the total ice cube kisses actors gave each other. Now ... yeah, not so much. Is it any wonder actors go through marriages like changing clothes?
As far as Paul quoting a pagan poet in Acts 17, of which he apparently read more than one, seeing the term is 'poets' in the text, he took the sentence, which in no way was addressing the Creator but, Jupiter, and turned it to the Creator. The Greek poet was not speaking truth but, a lie. Paul turned the statement towards the true God, as he did the inscription on the statue. I do not see that as any reason or excuse to approach acting with biblical affinity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 28, 2015 18:15:00 GMT -8
Lol. Regarding the Samaritans, touché. I forgot john lays that out, though the Synoptics don't. Lemme see if I can come up with a better example.
|
|
It's not lying... it's pretending. 
