Aichele, George and Richard Walsh, eds. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity
Press International, 2002. $28.00 US/ $38.70 CAD. ISBN 1-56338-354-3.
[1] There is something adventurous about the essays in Screening
Scripture: Intertextual Connections Between Scripture and Film.
Usually it is not complimentary to call an academic's work imaginative
but an exception should be made here. The scholars assembled
for this project have imagination in spades - and so it is that the
Gospel of Mark can meaningfully be set side-by-side with Patch
Adams or the Book of Revelation with versions of the Dracula story,
for instance. For the purpose of a brief introduction and review,
I note two key presuppositions introduced by the editors and illustrated
in the essays themselves.
[2] First, the approach to cinema and the Bible modeled in Screening
Scripture is characterized by an unapologetic subjectivity.
It recognizes the role of the scholar in any "conversations"
heard between Scripture and film (x-xiii). These writers, and
indeed all readers of the Bible and viewers of movies, approach their
"texts" from unique social and material locations, and "no
reader has privileged access to some site of authoritative, univocal
meaning." Ultimately, there "is no proper or correct
exegesis of any text. All readings are eisegeses, biased
expressions of one ideology or another, and the conflict of readings
is often a conflict of ideologies" (vii-viii; italics original).
With such a thoroughly postmodern starting point, there is little
wonder that a wide diversity is found among the thirteen essays collected
here.
[3] Second, the title might suggest to some that observed connections
between film and Scripture - imagery, motifs, story lines, etc. -
would privilege the Bible with a certain priority of status (i.e.,
not only is it ancient, it holds, or should hold, greater value and
authority when placed side-by-side with other texts). But in
fact, Screening Scripture does not engage in this kind of exercise.
Scripture is not prioritized in such a way that movies are judged
to be right or wrong, good or bad when intertextual connections are
observed (ix). If there is indeed an infinite number of ways
texts - both the Bible and film - can be interpreted, and if all readers
bring their individuality to the hermeneutical task, then there is
no basis to conclude that any one interpretation - of the Bible or
a film - is essentially the correct one. Any insights
gained by the scholars concerned do not necessarily derive from the
ancient text any more than the modern.
[4] One interesting consequence growing out of these presuppositions
is the possibility that later, derivative texts (film) can shed light
on the precursor text (the Bible). For instance, Richard Walsh
finds that "Placing End of Days [a 1999 Arnold
Schwarzenegger film] alongside Revelation . . . exposes the anger
and resentment at the heart of Revelation" (13). Ralph
J. Brabban suggests that "When one allows themes, features, or
other characteristics of biblical texts to be compared with nonbiblical
stories . . . new readings and new insights may appear" (75).
He argues that rereading the Book of Ruth after watching Midnight
Cowboy helps readers appreciate how the former "deals with
alienation, sex, and incompleteness" (76). Erin Runions
reflects on the challenge of reading the violent and misogynist language
of Ezekiel 16 in the context of sacred literature. She offers
the suggestion that rereading the passage as one "with something
interesting to say about the construction of gender identity,"
as the film Boys Don't Cry seems to do, may be a valuable exercise
(191; cf. 211-12). For Jeffrey L. Staley, reading the Gospel
of Mark alongside Patch Adams "gives viewers a new way
to understand the political challenge of Mark's Jesus" (228).
And so on. There is something appealing about such instances
of "professional" biblical scholars/exegetes looking for
and finding insights in popular media. The notion that exclusive
access to truth, meaning, and authority is reserved for a select few
- so often a recipe for abuse - is chipped away at just a little bit.
[5] At times the scholars involved in the project take readers in
unexpected directions. For example, Tina Pippin's study of Dracula-mythology
from Bram Stoker through various incarnations of the story in film
concludes with reflections on "systemic classism" (40-41).
At other times the conclusions reached are both intriguing and even
a little shocking; for instance, as Roland Boer asks us to consider:
was St. Paul psychotic?; Carl Dyke asks: can Monty Python really teach
us something about reading the Gospels? The presuppositions
outlined above provide a forum for these scholars to experiment with
new ideas and approaches. Naturally, some essays are more successful
than others in doing so, but they consistently reflect creative thinking
and at times point to new possibilities for biblical and film criticism.
And dare I say it - these essays are even entertaining. It is
rare that academic books provide enjoyable reading. The combination
of creative, imaginative scholarship and serious treatment of the
Bible and cinema in Screening Scripture has accomplished this
beautifully.
Michael J. Gilmour, Ph.D.
Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada
michael.gilmour@prov.ca
