Subscribe
Follow Tweets
Become a Fan
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Stumble it
+1 on Google
Is the fantasy genre really all that fantastic? Is it the worthy product of the imagination or the rotten fruit of vain speculation? Religious viewers of fictional stories often debate whether fantasy stories are safe entertainment or dangerous, subtle subversion of their essential values. Is there a place for magical, fantastical stories from other worlds necessitating deviations on real-world principles? Michael Minkoff exposes fact from fiction in today’s Movieology!
Filed Under
All Episodes, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Special Feature
Tags
american vision bible biblical boiling pots canaanites christianity fact fantasy featured fiction israel lord of the rings michael minkoff mother eagles Movieology movieologytv mystical creatures old testament parables poems poetry psalms reality return of the jedi return of the king storytelling vineyards worldview
Share this post
Email
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
24 Comments
Well done. I’m really looking forward to part 2.
I enjoy fantasy and Sci-fi, however as a Christian I do not want to cross over into anything displeasing to Christ. How do we discern this? I know the Holy Spirit prompts me but I am already involved in watching. Is it where the power in the story comes from? Witchcraft and evil are okay in a story line to watch, if right prevails? Like Lord of the Rings as oppossed to Harry Potter? Not everything is of equal value. Where is the line we should not step over to continue to be God honoring. If you address this tomorrow, then disregard my questions. If not, please help.
I probably don’t address this very particularly because it is different for different Christians. This isn’t intended to be a relativist position. I think there are very clear directives (like Phil. 4:8 for instance), but a particular people have different perspectives on what this means. I would recommend a very general rule: Is this helping me to serve and love Jesus and my neighbors? I read all the Pullman books, for instance, because I had some students (back when I taught high school) that liked the books alot, and I wanted to be able to talk about them with the kids. I didn’t necessarily enjoy the books, they weren’t really personally uplifting, and I disagree with most everything Pullman believes, but I am glad I read them nonetheless. They helped me to love my neighbor, and they also helped me to appreciate God’s wisdom, man’s foolishness, and the subtle ways Satan uses to make truly ugly things seem appealing.
Thank you, I appreciate your insight.
Sweet.. well done… looking forward to part two!
“Worlds that do not…or can not exist”??
I would suggest that although we do not see the worlds of “fantasy” that they could (or do) exist. Such as the book of Revelation. If we read the book of Revelation as John was writing it – it would be much easier to understand. John isn’t explaining something figuratively…but rather he was explaining something that he really was seeing – in the spirit – as literally as his natural means could express. He was seeing actual events that were happening in the spirit-world that had direct correlation with events that were happening in the natural world. It is difficult to explain spiritual things in the natural (as Paul indicates in 1 Corinthians 2:14)….
The idea that spirit (fantasy in this case) as the natural world are separate is something that has infected the Church through Greek philosophy (Hellenization). The First Century Church did not separate the spirit world from the natural world….they realized that the “unseen” has direct relevance with what we see in the natural and, in fact, depended on it.
So – I do believe I will agree with your resolve – that fantasy isn’t a problem, or a violation of truth/fact…I might however disagree with the segregation of fantasy and reality. Jesus did say, after all, that we will do greater works than He did – and I would suggest that Jesus raised the dead, walked through walls, and could disappear and reappear somewhere a great distance away in the blink of an eye. So, why do we doubt that we should be able to see these sort of things happening in our lives today anyway?
I tend to think that most fantasy movies are a reflection of what is happening in the spiritual realm – and since God is the creator of all creativity and that since “there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9) [except for God's mercy that is new every morning]….that the things that people “create” for fantasy – have already been created and that those who have “created” them in the natural are simply (unknowingly to themselves) simply re-creating what already is.
Isaiah 6:2 records great creatures on either side of The Lord “each with six wings. With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying….” These are called seraphim in most English translations of the text. The Hebrew word there is saraph. Other than a few times in Isaiah’s imagery – this word is only used 7 times – the other 3 times are when God released “serpents” in the wilderness – suggesting to me that these weren’t just snakes as most of our English translations read – but rather the same immense winged fire-breathing creatures we see in the Throne-Room of God. (see Numbers 21:6, 8 & Deut 8:15).
Fantasy entertainment (in my opinion) is a reflection of what someone is seeing “in the spirit” – while some may not acknowledge that they are seeing in the spirit – in relative correlation with what is happening in the natural….
I don’t think I am separating the natural from the spiritual world, though I would distinguish them. But in this video, I don’t address any segregation between natural and spiritual realities. What John wrote in Revelation he saw in a vision, being “in the Spirit.” I am not sure what this means exactly, but it is clearly not day-to-day normal eyesight. John was an Apostle, and the book of Revelation is an inspired product of the Breath of God. Fantasy narratives in general cannot claim this high pedigree, and I would be wary of granting them even a portion of it. Most fantasy narratives are the product of human imagination, and as such, can be useful and interesting, and also stale and uninspired. John says we should test the spirits, since not every spirit is from God. Not everyone is inspired, knowingly or unknowingly, by God’s Holy Spirit, and we should be wary of saying so.
I have no idea whether there are events playing out in a “spiritual” dimension that are then reflected in our natural dimension. The Bible doesn’t explicitly say this, so I can’t really know. But I do see an issue with the theory. It means there’s nothing that isn’t real, and that would seem to contradict warnings against “vain speculation.” It also would indicate a Platonic ideal world which gives ontological substance to our lowly material one. Contrary to your assertion, the Church has always made a *distinction* between the spiritual and natural world, but faithful Christians are careful not to make a *separation* between them. You yourself have made a distinction just by saying that there are in fact two worlds, a natural one and a spiritual one. The Bible also makes a distinction between what is “visible and invisible,” between that which is eternal and that which is passing away. In my mind, the visible and invisible are inter-penetrating. Things we do with our bodies can incur eternal judgment. Things we think with invisible minds can affect our physical health.
Anyway, I think we should be careful to make clear that miraculous things, angels and demons, etc. in the Bible (when they are part of historical narratives) are meant to be received as actual events and beings. When Balaam’s donkey talked, this wasn’t a parable. But when Jotham’s trees talked, it was. It’s important to make a distinction between these things because the Bible does. It uses words like “history” or “account.” And it also uses words like “parable” and “vision.” We are meant to make a distinction between these things. The Book of Revelation borrows much of its imagery from the Old Testament prophets, who wrote in poetry almost exclusively. I think this indicates that these books present what is actual and inevitable in *figures* which are themselves not actual, but nonetheless true. Anyway, I don’t know how much this clarifies. This topic is a rather large one, and better fit for a long visit in a comfortable room than a shot-in-the-dark interchange over the interz-web. Thanks again for watching and for posting!
“This topic is a rather large one, and better fit for a long visit in a comfortable room than a shot-in-the-dark interchange over the interz-web…”
I agree…perhaps we could sit and have coffee sometime.
I believe that the points I was trying to establish were somewhat ‘lost in translation’….
not a big deal…
I read the book of Revelation more as a historical account of events that John saw happening while he was “in the spirit”…
My point regarding the segregation of the spirit and natural worlds – is that while they are different – they do (as you put it) inter-penetrate. Hebriac tradition considered the spirit and natural worlds to be holistic in that the two worked cooperatively. The 1st Century Church knew this – but after the infiltration of Gnosticism and other pagan teaching began to separate the two…
I appreciate your reviews today. Please, don’t read what I am not saying. I agree…and I enjoy fantasy films (although, for one reason or another I have no interest in seeing Harry Potter – but I have watched the LOTR and Narnia films, and enjoyed them all immensely…).
Bless you!
At least in this “framework,” which gets lost in the intellectualization of parable and metaphor, the primary point of danger is missed. Certainly the Bible is abundant with parable and metaphor. But none of Jesus’s parables present demons and principalities as powerful and spectacular entities or in any way attempt to use powerful and spectacular demonic entities to “teach” moral lessons.
That is the real danger of “fantasy” — the depiction of the demonic as powerful and spectacular in a way that stirs the imagination and interest of the vulnerable unregenerate soul, or regenerate but immature soul, in the demonic — and by doing so gives place, creates an opening, to demonic influence in the life of that person.
The is issue is not the place of “fiction.” The issue is the effect of the influence of the demonic nature of “fantasy fiction.” This has little or nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible’s use of fiction as teaching and metaphor.
I address the dangers more fully in episode 2. But I don’t really agree that fantasy fiction must by necessity have a “demonic nature.” Many fantasy novels with no reference to demons are still unedifying. Further, as someone else already pointed out, demons are not really properly the realm of fantasy, since they do exist. And, according to God, they are powerful, albeit ultimately doomed and presently leashed. Ironically, I think *Christian* fiction is more likely to exaggerate demonic power than anti-Christian fiction. Just some thoughts. Thanks for watching!
Well done Michael!
First, I noticed a comment about demons being portrayed as powerful. Well, they are. The Bible depicts them that way. The Bible also depicts them as vanquished foes. Any fantasy that shows this relationship would not be out of line with Scripture in my opinion. Second, depicted impossible events surely depends on what one deems to be impossible. For instance, a fictional piece written in the 17th century that talked about guns that could shot some sort of beam would have been deemed impossible in that time. But today, we know that lasers can be extremely powerful. We have movies today that depict transporters (the first that I know of was of course The Fly made in 1958). In the fifties, the cartoon Dick Tracy wore a two-way wrist radio, something that only existed in the mind at that time. Are such devices impossible? I completely agree that depicting an omnipotent god who can create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift is certainly depicting something that is impossible. But would it be wrong to show that such a god could not exist…or that he was incapable of redemption? I think not. And we must not forget that the imagination is part of the Imago Dei…part of what it means to be made in the image of God. Without finer distinctions, perhaps we should focus on the overall theme of a fictional or fantasy film. Is it in the end a redemptive theme? Is its telos in line with redemptive history? Does it portray desire as eventually and through hardship focusing on the created order as God sees it, and thus inevitably pointing to Christ? There are no hard and fast rules here…but surely the maturity level of the viewer and the church in history must be taken into account. I look forward to your next part…this is an awesome thing you are doing with these reviews. It would sure be great to hear your take on Serenity. God bless.
I say “do not (and in some case *cannot*) exist.” Some fictional worlds just do not exist, but could. An interesting historical note is that the first submarine to go under the North Pole was named the “Nautilus” after Captain Nemo’s submarine. In this case, fantasy actually prompted and prefigured reality. But some worlds just cannot exist, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. For instance, the fictional worlds in “Kung Fu Panda” or the Chronicles of Narnia cannot exist. Reinvented historical narratives (like the most recent Tarantino film depicting the assassination of Hitler in a movie theater by American soldiers) cannot exist, etc. Finding the overall theme of these movies is crucial to determining whether or not the film comports with a Scriptural understanding of reality, whether or not the narrative did or could exist. Thanks!
Oh, and I haven’t seen Serenity. The previews made it look cheesy (to me anyway). But if you want my take on it, I’ll watch it when I can cram a spare minute in. Thanks again!
This comment (specifically the Nautilus) reminded me of a friend of mine, now past:
Lloyd Arthur Eshbach. He was a science fiction author Born in 1910. One of the books he wrote about a space exploration mission from earth to the moon…the vehicle which they used was called “Apollo”….
He went to and taught at the church that I grew up in.
Having not listened to Michael’s spot yet, I’ll just “wing it”
Some films don’t have happy endings or point to Christ, or have a redemptive theme and yet they still have poignant thoughts to share; casting light on issues which are worth contemplating. There are reasons why a writer might select to set the story in a certain place or time, and there are reasons the characters might be involved in this or that activity or situation. Sometimes there are meanings behind the choices a writer makes, and he’s actually saying “this” through “that”. What I’m getting at is, sometimes we can “look past” this or that offensive thing and see that that thing is merely being used as a tool to say something in the story and isn’t meant to be taken literally.
I suspect that fantasy films might lend themselves more to this kind of symbolism or metaphor because the audience is allowed to detach from their routine interpretation of reality and become more able to see things figuratively … maybe.
However, is it not part of the intent of “Movieology” to helps us learn to discern the inner workings of the films we watch? And I agree that some people are able to watch one film while another person would become most agitated and strongly influenced. We are all similar, but we are not all the same. Those who are able ought not condemn those who are not able, and those who cannot “stomach” the images of “strong” films ought to know this and avoid them, but not condemn those who are able to sift through them without being overcome.
I think our ultimate goal would be to know what we believe, and why we believe it, and be able to spot that which is not in accordance with what we believe. If you can do this, then what power would any film hold over you? The power to overcome us lies in our inability to spot the deceptions (or the alternate views) when they’re presented.
Agreed. Fantasy films do tend to be more explicitly allegorical. Realistic fictional narratives are sometimes more difficult to assess for themes since the “meanings” are often buried deep in the story, and it may be unclear whether the author himself or just some character is responsible for a given idea. Unreliable narrators and the like make this even more complicated. That is why there are loads of different interpretations (some more thoughtful than others) on any given piece of fiction. I think you are right that to watch or not to watch a given movie is a personal decision. You won’t find us saying anything different than that here! Thanks for posting.
Was just wondering if you had considered reviewing older films as well as the new releases? I don’t know. I mean, after listening to some of your recent spots, for some reason the film (based on a book) “The Old Man and the Sea” came to mind. I guess since we were talking about “fiction” and “fantasy”, and how some stories mean other things than what they appear to be. “The Old Man and the Sea” came to mind, and it seemed that here’s a story about this old guy who’s “days are numbered” so far as his life long profession of fishing goes, and he finds himself struggling with this great catch which will earn him respect and admiration, and after all his noble efforts it all comes to nothing, and he dies and his work is forgotten. But it’s not a story about “an old man and the Sea”, it’s a story about the futility of “life under the Sun” (as in Ecclesiastes), and how everything is vanity.
Well, that’s what I thought, I might be wrong, but that’s what I thought … as an example of metaphor. So, I wondered if you ever considered mentioning older films which illustrate things; then we could watch them and see what you’re talking about.
(and I also seem to be a little confused about the meanings of terms like metaphor, analogy, symbolism and so on)
“The Old Man and the Sea” was, by the way, a very good film. (and I guess the book wasn’t so bad either
I tried to post this on FB, but I guess it was too long? Wouldn’t post it. Normally if something’s too long it lets me post it as a note, but this time it did nothing. (?)
I think “Old Man and the Sea” would be a great movie to review! I agree with you about the Ecclesiastes like upshot of its message, but I would modify it slightly. I think the book, and the movie as well, is an existentialist narrative of the vainglory of human endeavor, and the intrinsic futility of human importance and meaning. But it doesn’t go where Ecclesiastes goes with this. It starts with “everything is vanity” but it doesn’t go on to say, “Then, when all is said and done, fear God and do His commandments…” Instead it presents the individual as his own savior, applying meaning to things to carve out his own sense of worth, even if that worth may not have any true transcendental foundation. This is why Santiago is figured so often as a Christ (with the beams of his ship against his back (carrying his cross), and in the end face down on his bed with his arms stretched out crucifix-like). This Christian symbolism points to man as his own savior, the author of his own truth and meaning. Hemmingway intended this story to be a parable, and even called it one. Very good suggestion!
After reading a synopsis of “The Old Man and the Sea” in Wikapedia I discover that Santiago does not die. (it’s been awhile since I watched the film) That doesn’t affect my “take” much though. I still see Ecclesiastes in it, and I concur about it not going on to suggest the full counsel of God’s word concerning what we ought to then do. Therefor I’d classify it as a tragedy. (if I understand the meaning of that term; and I might not)
But I also read some of the older critiques of Hemingway’s work and was interested to see their analysis of the story. One of them said it had to do with Santiago’s move from Spain to Cuba, and his attempt to win the respect of this Cuban community. I NEVER would have thought that.
So … this raises a legitimate question in my mind. How are we to reconcile the different impressions various people “walk away with” of any given film? Here I am reading the reviews of Professional (meaning it’s their livelihood) critics, and none of them agreed much. How much more can we expect average movie viewers to agree on meanings. I don’t think “The Old Man and the Sea” is “an empty wineskin” as much as many current films are; meaning, I don’t think Hemingway was trying to hit the widest target market he possibly could (so far as his motive for writing that story goes) I think he said whatever it was he had in mind to say, but I’m interested to hear your response to the issue concerning the variety of interpretations a single event can generate. I should think differences of views ought to generate some stimulating discussion? (if we can keep it from becoming “heated”)
Different people can bring different insights to the same content and enrich the discussion. The problem with many commentators and critics is that they are not very broadly informed or they tend too often to impose their very slanted desires or perspectives on content regardless of whether or not the material can support their assumptions (e.g. “queer theory”). Iron sharpens iron, however. The whole discussion is important. Ultimately, God holds us all accountable personally for the opinions we hold. We should seek victory in a multitude of counselors, while realizing that, in the end, each person is responsible to make the best decision he can for himself and his family. “The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves” (Romans 14:22).
Another facet to multiple interpretations of story and film is heavily influenced by worldviews. Worldviews impact how we view interpretation itself. For instance, post-modernists don’t believe that truth is definable using various established methods (including those that are used in God’s Word). Thus, people disagree on the validity of multiple interpretations.
This will be a topic we address in the future.
Your two videos on a bilical view of fantasy is a great apologetic for Christian view of fiction in general. Thanks so much for doing this! I’m posting a link on my blog today.
Thank you!