| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| "Beowulf" and Christ |
| 2007-11-29 |
| By Raymond Ibrahim 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. That's a meme very common from the neo-pagan part of the french far-right, the "desert religion" which has deprived Europe of its lifeforce, or Chrisitanity as the religion of feebleness - just this noon, I read an announce of a mass that will be given for Anne-Lorraine, the RER rape-stabbing victime, and the fact that there will be prayers and call to forgive her murderer has all the so-called pagans howling at th emoon of how "turning the other cheek" is the mark of the decadence of Europe, etc, etc. Strawman argument. 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. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #10 Going through Richard Winston's 'Charlemagne' (narrated by Charles Griffon). Definately suggest it, really any topic from Audio Connoiseur - great to listen to at work. When describing the tribal ethos it is interesting how comparable the description is compared with Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic war. Reading 'I care for none of these things' makes sense in a good way. But as the lady in India and Theo van Gogh, plus the politician getting ready to release his film can attest there only seems to be one group in particular which has a problem with criticism and is not being handled in the way the poet mentions. Christianity/the West have been the 'bad guy' in innummerable movies (I would like to add that the advertisements for the game 'Assassins Creed' has the character going after a character dressed in the same manner as those in 'Kingdom of Heaven'). With the hooplah around 'Passion of Christ' there were no churches or synagogues burned (that I know of). Draw a picture someone doesn't like and a teacher has people calling for her death with that as an excuse. I can agree with Ibrahim's dissection of the movies seeing the particulars and subtleties (except for Merlin's line, took that as 'a stronger wind is beginning to blow' but understand Ibrahim's point about the 'loss of the mystical'). It is important IMO in image terms to have more good fights and values - I have to constantly remind my peers that there was a movie 'Tears of the Sun', give history lessons for 'Blackhawk Down', and explain that just because Raiden fights Beowulf that the book should be read. Some of it I chalk up to the general lack of imagination coming out of the movie industry (all the remakes of movies and/or just using familiar names - and I would like to add that Golden Compass is a cheap knockoff of Narnia) but that there is a more sinister undercurrent among a lot of movies (this is coming from someone who took offense in 'Transformers' when the police car said "To Oppress and Crush", used a Raptor as a bad guy when a Falcon could have been more general nationality and cameoflauged). GI JOE in Brussells are you frikin kidding me? Basically it comes down to this for me. A cowboy friend of mine from around my way was vacationing in Hawaii recently and he says "a couple of asian guys" jumped him (no offense intended its just how we talk around here) and started helling at him for his passport (I know but it makes me think that they were the foreigners in the conversation). 'Oh, here comes a white guy, let's get him because he will roll over'. Being perceived as a weak link, like in Red Rover, draws that type of attention - by the way an ass whippun on them. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2007-11-29 21:14 |
| #9 Point being that Martel was a bad ass and western Europe owes him a huge debt of gratitude. However, he was hardly what we would consider an ideal christian if one digs deep enough. Personally saw to the end of the meroviginian line of kings and started the Caroliginian line under his son Peppin and then his grandson Charlemagne. Tours is a great battle study - rare instance of medieval infantry standing up to repeated cavalry charges. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2007-11-29 20:31 |
| #8 As argued andor inferred long ago, one of the major "justifications" for 9-11/WOT as WAR FOR OWG, GLOBAL/UNIVERSAL GOVTISM, etc, is that the USA-West must save, validate or "justify" EVERY -iSM, ANTE-ISM, PRO-ISM AND ANTI-ISM regardless of base. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-11-29 19:27 |
| #7 Perhapas Martel wasn't the first Frank to embrace it but that doesn't mean he didn't. And he comes off as a bit better known as a warrior which is the theme. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-11-29 18:29 |
| #6 I read the book as a kid and don't remember Grendel having a hot mom or any anti-Christian rhetoric - it was just a good dungeons/dragon style yarn. BTW - it was Clovis in about 496 that embraced Christianity for the Franks not Martel 200 yrs later. Martel already had the backing of the church when he was the lord protector of the castle. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2007-11-29 17:14 |
| #5 The only Beowulf that matters. |
| Posted by: spiffo 2007-11-29 17:12 |
| #4 They totally lost me when I saw Angelina Jolie was used as the model for Grendel's mother. I mean, c'mon! |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2007-11-29 14:06 |
| #3 There was a "Beowulf & Grendel" movie last year ago which seemed promising, this may be the one whose props are on sale by Museum Replicas. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2007-11-29 14:01 |
| #2 i could discourse about this topic (Beowulf) ad nauseum, but it would be a heinous crime to make my fellow Rantburgers puke up all of Barbara's savory popcorn... so i'll defer to the Goodly Professor JRRT and not see the Beowulf movie after all, since the movie i understand they've released here is totally different from the one whose props Museum Replicas had for sale. That and i've read the book. |
| Posted by: Querent 2007-11-29 13:07 |
| #1 I care for none of these things! |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2007-11-29 11:29 |