The year of Biblical movies, oh my!

Apparently this is the year of biblical movies.

February 28 is the opening of Son of God, which is basically a re-run of the the History Channel's series with some additional cuts, and apparently less devil. Then there's Noah. Or it might be Lord of the Rings IV. It's hard to tell from the trailer. Then, don't forget about Heaven is for Real, which is a big-screen adaptation of a NY Times bestseller from a couple years back. Finally, December brings us Exodus and Mary, Mother of Christ, because who didn't see Joel Osteen as an executive producer coming?

Russell Crowe: Master and Commander... and Noah. He can sail a ship and build one.

Now, I got ultra-snotty about these things, so I'll just go ahead and apologize right now. I mostly don't like these kinds of movies. I didn't like Passion of the Christ and the History Channel series on the The Bible left me less-than-thrilled. It wasn't even that it was bad theology or anything; I just didn't care for it. That's a critique that isn't remotely fair, and I realize that, but it's also simply true for my experience.

I've been thinking more and more about why this is, since apparently I'm going to be barraged with these movies over and over in the coming months, and I've come to this conclusion: I want these movies to do too much.

Let's forget Heaven is for Real for a moment, because that's really a different kind of movie compared with the biblical ones. For the others there are several things I want from them: I want them to be historically accurate, I want them to be theologically sound (not the same thing), and I want them to be entertaining (because they're a movie, duh!). Only, I'm pretty sure hitting all three is an impossible task.

It's hard enough to make an historically accurate movie. The flood story is heavy on details like the kind of wood Noah uses but kind of scant on details that make a movie, so clearly you're going to need to create a storyline between the lines of scripture. Making a movie about Jesus is easier in one sense--there's lots written about him in the Bible--but tougher in another: somebody has to, you know, act as the son of God. Then, since you're telling a story, you need some kind of message--a moral or something--behind what you're putting on the screen. But Christians can't agree remotely on the nitty-gritty stuff of theology, let alone the non-Christians at whom we can at least pretend these movies are directed, so you're going to have to cater to one particular understanding of God in how you craft this movie. This is fine, but we must at least acknowledge that that was the choice of some filmmaker and probably not divinely-inspired. 

So, we're left with a conundrum. On the one hand, it's nice to have some rather overtly Christian attempts at modern Hollywood film since we are obligated as Christians to tell people about Jesus and I can think of few bigger stages than this to do it. But, on on the other hand, the end product is hardly going to scratch the surface of what faith actually looks like.

My worry is that the one movie of these that isn't a re-telling of scripture, Heaven is for Real, will be the one that Christians pump up and tell their friends about. I worry about this because the idea that we come to faith because of somebody else's experience of heaven is both very modern and very suspect. We don't come to faith because of evidence; we come to faith as a gift that God gives us. Maybe these movies will help in that regard. I hope so. But I'm not holding my breath.

So, you might be wondering which, if any, of these I will be seeing. Well, I might see Noah. And I might even like it. Because the particulars of the flood story are not prominent articles of my faith. And, honestly, I have some hope that Hollywood is going to get this one right--in that it's a story about our unfaithfulness and God's faithfulness. As long as there's something along those lines I'll enjoy the battles and special effects and Emma Watson... none of which have I found yet in Genesis.