it’s my movie [part II]

About a month and a half ago I wrote a post about violence in movies. I ended it with a sort of thought-experiment in which I rewrote the end of Avatar (if you haven’t seen the movie and intend to, don’t read that post). I’ve been thinking a lot about how we ‘write our story(ies)’ and where we place violence – and the need of/for violence – in our lives. If it is possible to rewrite the end of Avatar with a less violent ending (or at least, less justified/redeemed violence), how do we conceive of our future choices? Can our considerations for our future and our hopes ‘rewrite’, per se, how we as individuals interact with violence? I frame this tension as trying to respond to violence with redemption rather than retaliation.*

What is the greatest fear one might have concerning a nonviolent response to violence? (which I believe is not enough, there must further be a redemptive response). I believe the fear is destruction, and ultimately death.

Recently I have been thinking about Christ and the stance he took concerning violence; and this tension that I have been referring to as retaliation vs redemption. Christ did not respond with violence. In fact, Christ’s response to violence was much more akin to my rewrite of the Avatar ending. The political systems – and holy religious leaders – of the day had a plan to remove Jesus and his threatening position from the picture: death. So, when Jesus called for a paradigm which not only confronted the current system but rebelled against it in thought, word, and deed, it was time to remove him.

But Jesus remained consistent. He says to Peter when he is being arrested:

⁵²‘Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. ⁵³Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? (Matthew 26:52-53)

For Jesus to have responded violently would have undone so much of his ministry. This selfish reaction would have reversed the whole paradigm he lived and preached. So, he responds without violence, even healing the man whose ear Peter cut off. (Luke 22:51) And as is the greatest fear of the nonviolent response, it led Jesus to death. But now Jesus is the initiator of redemption in the face of violence, for three days after death he rose again. Jesus has brought a future possibility of hope and peace to a world that only knows war and prideful self-service.

If we believe that Jesus really could rise from death; if we believe that his resurrection is our eschatological hope, then we must rethink and let Christ transform our response to violence and destruction and domination. We need to reevaluate the systems we’ve created and participate in, beginning to reconcile our convictions (and the calling of our Savior) with our interaction with people and nations. Let’s explore what it means to respond with redemption rather than retaliation.

__________________

*There is some ambiguity in my use of the word redemption, as I formerly used it in reference to violence with disdain and now I am using it as antithetical to violence/retaliation. The difference here is that I want situations, and specifically individuals in situations, to be redeemed; whereas on the other hand, I deplore images where violence, and especially killing, is viewed as redeemed/justified. The phrase “Redemptive Violence” is, in my mind, close to a blatant contradiction, so when I use ‘redemption’ in conjunction with violence, it is usually to represent a position I am arguing against. But I thoroughly believe/hope/expect/desire a world (or dare I say a ‘kingdom’ - the Kingdom of God, to be exact) where redemption peacefully offers an alternative to violence, an alternative reality that will someday become the primary reality.

it’s my movie, I can kill if I want to

Violence.

it’s everywhere. I can’t hardly watch a movie anymore without seeing violence glorified in one sense or another. The wonderful movie Avatar even led a peaceful, tree-hugging race to a kill-those-sons-a-b#$@#s! war. We just leave the movie and say, “they did what they had to do” and someday, we or our children will ‘do what we have to do’ and kill whomever makes us uncomfortable.

There are a number of [perhaps] legitimate excuses for the amount of redemptive violence we subject ourselves to:

1. I wish it was better, but we live in a violent world – it’s just the reality of the situation.

2. There is no option for the victimized party but to retaliate violence.

3. We get to see how terrible it is and try to find a better way.

4. Killing and war are a part of the evolutionary process – survival of the fittest – and it must be permitted so that evolution continue its course. (by the way, I’m not trying to demonize evolution – I think the extremes of Fundamental conservative Christianity are just as absurd)

Think of a recent movie (even, or should I say especially a movie you believe to have a profound message). If it was a blockbuster or even just mainstream, it probably exhibited redemptive violence. Avatar: the people fought to protect their home. The Book of Eli: Eli fought to protect the Bible. Any war movie.

I’m tired of killing. and I’m really tired of seeing it glorified. I do believe there is something sacred about life – or at least something worthy of respect – and war and killing and most violence deny it. It says, “this or that concept, ideal, or perception is more important than any individual.” And it says, “I will kill (and destroy life) to protect this non-existent, non-living ideal.”

Is there a good way to incorporate violence in movies?

How about this: what if, in the Avatar movie, when the ‘sky-people’ waged war and went on a killing spree against the Na’vi, the Na’vi refused to fight and all died. First reaction might be, “that was a terrible ending!” Think about it though, what has just happened? We’ve grown to love these ‘aliens’, the natural inhabitants of the planet. Then, they all die because greed, selfishness, egocentrism, power, and pride dictate the actions of the humans in the story. I know I would leave that movie thinking, “Why must we be so violent!?!” And I think many others would too. The violence deserves no glorification – it deserves to be demonized, but no one is willing to do it.

Even more importantly, I think movies that creatively attempt non-violent responses to crisis (even if it’s unrealistic and idealistic) are opening our thoughts to the possibility of a new response. If, as in option 1 above, we really do wish it was better, let’s start to imagine what this ‘better’ might look like. Maybe then someday people will get the reality to the ‘better’ we imagine and hope for.