Where do our heroes come from?

Jesus in the media. We all have an image of Jesus in our minds, whether we are religious or not. He is a rugged handsome character with long, slightly curly locks and he is a typical white Anglo-Saxon . Where did this representation come from? I was intrigued to read that the white representation of Jesus was initially constructed to convey his brightness and purity (Harvey, 2010). Due to the racial tension experienced all over the world however, this construct was of course considered to be "racially defined" (Harvey, 2010, p. 407).  In Bruce Almighty we see an alternative way of conveying this 'purity and brightness' with Morgan Freeman, acting as God, dressed in a white suit surrounded by a totally white environment. Are either of these representations better than the other?

Whilst Harvey (2010) recognises that people construct Jesus in their own image (whatever race), a list of features has actually been created to examine whether a film character can be considered a “Christ-figure” (Deacy, 2006). One feature in particular highlighted by Deacy (2006) was that character must have blue eyes. For me, this provokes questions when considering films in which the Christ-figure in question is not human.

Matthew McEver argues that sacred religious identities are now represented by the coaches, animals, teachers and a plethora of other characters that we see on our screens (Deacy, 2006).Take for instance the Chronicles of Narnia. Many of us, as children, simply fall in love with the story but parallels have indeed been drawn between Aslan (the lion) and Jesus such as his selfless sacrifice of his own life, his resurrection and many other aspects of the character’s creation. Why is it important that this figure have blue eyes? More importantly I raise the question: how does such a representation impact our opinion or construction of Jesus, if at all?

Deacy (2006) questions what purpose making links between religion and film even serves. In answering this question I feel we must return to the idea I have mentioned previously of personal meaning. In doing so I concur with Deacy (2006) that simply finding a Christ-figure in a movie is of no purpose unless it prompts discussion and challenges viewers to develop a more in-depth understanding of religion and values. If I have no interest whatsoever in Christian beliefs I should still be able to enjoy the Chronicles of Narnia simply as a story. In turn I could also watch the same movie and take some life values (not necessarily religious) away from it. However if it does build on my connection and understanding of religion then why shouldn’t it?


Harvey (2010) argues that in allowing Jesus to be constructed in whatever way one wishes to diminishes Jesus to the equivalent of a personal friend. In modern times Jesus is not only "a Saviour" but "is all things to all people, who is infinitely adaptable, pliable, and merchandisable" (Harvey, 2010, p. 394). In Harvey's view Jesus, the Saviour, is no longer sacred but manipulable into someone likable and just like us. Whatever your view on Jesus being represented through film and TV it cannot be denied that such representations continuously influence the way we see and think about Jesus, God and religion.

References

Deacy, C. 2006. Reflections on the Uncritical Appropriation of Cinematic Christ-Figures: Holy Other or Wholly Inadequate? Journal of Religion and Popular Culture, 13, Summer.

Harvey, P. 2011. Jesus in American Culture. In D. Burkett (Ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Jesus. Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Image Source

African Lion [Image]. (2010). Retrieved from http://pixabay.com/en/africa-african-animal-carnivore-2605/

Fog mist [Image]. (2013). Retrieved from http://pixabay.com/en/fog-mist-golden-sunrise-lake-79456/

Video Source

Movieclips. (2011, May 30). Bruce meet God (2003) [Video file]. Video posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjAM2J_D4UY