ChristiansUnite Forums

"Beowulf" and Christ     

By now, the oft-recurring negative portrayals of Christianity in major Hollywood movies have become hackneyed and predictable. Watching Beowulf recently only reinforced this fact. The same subtle depictions and motifs present in movies from decades past were once again present. A favorite being the attempt to try to depict pagans as “open-minded” and “free-spirited” peoples, or, quite anachronistically, as Medieval counterparts to the modern, secular, liberal. The idea being that pagan peoples—unencumbered by the suffocating forces of Christianity—were/are happy, passionate folk, able to live life to the fullest.

Beowulf’s opening scene depicts King Hrothgar and his thanes in an utterly bacchanalian setting: carried in a litter, privates barely covered in a loose toga, inebriated and cheery, Hrothgar declares to the festive crowd that it’s time to party and “fornicate.” (As to how well grounded these representations are to the original text, see John Miller’s “Beowulf the Movie Star.”) Simultaneously, a sullen (and we soon find out cowardly and conniving) Unferth, his advisor, perfunctorily explains to a bystander the advisability of embracing Christianity—all while urinating. When Unferth later suggests to the convivial Hrothgar that perhaps he and the people should consider praying to the “new god,” Christ, a sobered up Hrothgar rejects the suggestion with disdain. Finally, this same Unferth, the only advocate for Christianity in the movie, just so happens to also be the only one in the pagan kingdom who, not only keeps, but constantly beats, a slave—an oblique reminder of the tired charge that Christianity is somehow responsible for slavery.

Released two years earlier, The Kingdom of Heaven, which is set in the Crusading era, follows the same exact anti-Christian paradigm. The opening scene portrays a callous priest gleefully informing the hero of the story, Balian (heroic, we ultimately find out, primarily because he’s wary of Christianity) that his suicide wife is doomed to hell, all while stealing her cross—not for its intrinsic value, of course, but that it’s made of silver. And all the “bad guys,” such as the Templars, have big red crosses painted on their tunics (the fact that these same red crosses still adorn hospitals and ambulances and what that implies altogether missed). Whenever these marauders want to engage in some nefarious scheme against the Muslims—who are always portrayed as noble and fair-dealing—they cynically holler, “God wills it!” In Beowulf, Unferth, the primary antagonist of the tale, is also the only one who wears an extremely large cross around his neck.

Then there’s King Arthur, released in 2004. Again, Arthur, who according to all records (legendary or otherwise) was Christian, now, just as with Kingdom of Heaven’s Balian, is portrayed as being ambivalent towards, and cautious of, Christianity. Conversely, the blue-painted pagan Picts are show as a free-loving people who simply want to live and let live, while the Church in Rome is a hypocritical and oppressive force, constantly out to exploit.

So, according to these films and their subliminal messages, we are to understand that all pre-modern Christians who were zealous over their faith were (and thus still are) all hypocrites—or worse—while all truly good “Christians” were (and still are) discreet, indifferent, skeptical, and cautious of Christianity, such as Balian and Arthur. Furthermore, according to these films, all non-Christians were either liberal and laid back (e.g., pagans), or noble, upright, and truly pious (i.e., Muslims). That pagan peoples habitually engaged in barbarous practices, such as human sacrifices, cannibalism, and slavery, or that Muslim law, then and now, is characterized by extremely draconian measures, such as stoning fornicators, subjugating non-Muslims and women, and, under certain circumstances, still sanctioning the institution of slavery is, of course, never mentioned. Nor is the fact that Christianity abolished things like human sacrifices, and its ultimate law is to love God and one’s fellow man (Mark 12:30-31).

Another depiction ubiquitous to these types of movies is the notion that Christianity, which at one point Beowulf contemptuously calls “the weeping religion of martyrs,” is an effete faith that all “true men”—warriors such as Beowulf—eschewed. This concept goes as far back as 1981 in the movie Excalibur, where a chrome-domed (and extremely animated) Merlin lamented that “The new god comes to drive out the old gods.” This in fact is a well entrenched motif, best given intellectual grounding by the many writings of Freidrich Nietzsche, who maintained that Christianity is the religion of the weak, while atheism, paganism, or even “Mohammedanism”—anything, really—is more conducive to the cultivation of manly virtues.

So again we are to understand that virile pagan peoples—such as the rowdy Vikings of the 1999 film 13th Warrior, who sarcastically explain to their upright Muslim companion that they are in need of “many gods”—were aware of the debilitating effects of strict monotheism and by extension Christianity and thus wanted nothing to do with it.

But this begs the question: If Christianity was, and is, some sort of un-masculine religion, meant to sap the “aristocratic” class of their manhood and arête—that is, manly virtue and excellence—why then did the ruling warrior class of Europe ever come to accept it in the first place? Why did the warrior emperor Constantine embrace Christianity in the 4th century? Who forced him—the persecuted church and its anchorite fathers? They had no authority; it is only due to Christianity’s intrinsic appeal that it spread—to both the people as well as their warrior-leaders. Following Constantine, there have been a number of heroic leaders who chose—not through coercion or any pressing need—to embrace Christianity: such as the Carolingians, including Charles “the Hammer” Martel, who Christian civilization owes no small debt for its existence (battle of Tours 732) and his descendants, most notably Charlemagne. Had these staunch Christians not defended the borders of Christendom from both pagan and Islamic forces, there would be no Western civilization to speak of.

At any rate, while Hollywood is on a crusade to defame Christianity, it would do well to remember that it is because of Christian civilization that they are even able to make movies in the first place. Not only is Christianity fundamentally responsible for what many a Western liberal takes for granted, that is, the freedoms and advancements of Western civilization, but much of the historical records that movie-makers are able to exploit, warp, and subsequently rake in millions with were compiled by Christians. No small irony is the fact that the one single solitary manuscript that contains the text of Beowulf was written by a monk and preserved in a monastery for centuries.

I still would like to see a movie made about the follies of islam specially since Mohammad was a pedophile. Course there might not be a Hollywood left standing, after the muslims finish with Hollywood...... :D :D :D :D

There already are a few (very few) but they are mostly hidden with people refusing to back them or allow them to be shown.

And that would  be bad because?

Are they taking up an offering to get it released?  I would gladly contribute...could serve two purposes...get rid of Hollywood and show how violent Islam really is.

I wouldn't think the financing itself should be that big a hurdle. Getting those that are not afraid to show it is a big deal.

I would be happy to show it on the side of the house 24/7 if needed :)

An example of what would happen if a movie has an actor representing Muhhamed in it even if the movie puts him in a favorable light.

___________________

Mohammed: Messenger of God; aka The Message

    This handsomely-mounted historical epic concerns the birth of the Islamic faith and the story of the prophet Mohammed -- who, in accordance with the tenants of Islam, is never seen or heard (any physical depiction of the prophet is considered a heinous sin within the faith)....

    Unfounded rumors had it that Mohammed would not only be depicted in the film, but that he was to be played by Charlton Heston or Peter O'Toole. This resulted in angry protests by Muslim extremists, until director Moustapha Akkad hired a staff of respected Islamic clerics as technical advisors. The advisors butted heads with Akkad, and they quit the production, which led the Moroccan government to withdraw their permission to film in their country.

    In time, Akkad ended up shooting on location in Libya under the sponsorship of Muammar Qaddafi, which presented a whole new set of political and practical problems for the filmmakers.

    Finally, when the film was scheduled to premier in the U.S., another Muslim extremist group staged a siege against the Washington D.C. chapter of the B'nai B'rith under the mistaken belief that Anthony Quinn played Mohammed in the film, threatening to blow up the building and its inhabitants unless the film's opening was cancelled. The standoff was resolved without explosion or injuries, though the film's American box office prospects never recovered from the unfortunate controversy. The Message was shot in two versions, one in English and one in Arabic (entitled Al-Ris-Alah), with different actors taking over some of the roles due to language requirements.

______________

I wish that I could remember the names of the ones that were produced on him that had an accurate depiction of him.

Are we related?  Because I'm feeling a kin-ship!  ;D

Yes we are sister, through Christ we are brothers, and sisters. :D :D :D