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)