December 28, 2007

"The 10 Most Anti-Christian Movies of All Time."

From New York Magazine. Don't miss the film clip at #1, which is "Uh, NSFW, unless you work in Hell."

(Via Feiler Faster.)

47 comments:

Ron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron said...

puts a funny spin on the concept of a "Friar's Club Roast," doesn't it?

EnigmatiCore said...

Loved Carrie, which did not come across to me like an anti-Christian movie, but rather an anti- crazy- mothers- whose- craziness- includes- religious- fanaticism.

Footloose sucked. The SNL skit "Footless" worked, though. But was it anti-Christian, or anti-Southern Baptist Fundamentalist?

Didn't see any of the others, except Monty Python. Now that was a good, solid, uproariously funny, well done anti-Christian movie.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Well considering that a movie that puts say, Islam in a poor light gets you shot to death in the street along with a knife planted in your chest, lets just say movie producers know who thier audience is.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Didn't see any of the others, except Monty Python. Now that was a good, solid, uproariously funny, well done anti-Christian movie.

Monty Python is hysterical no doubt. (What have the Romans ever done for us!!???) Name of the Rose is an excellent movie about the Inquisition. I'm a Roman Catholic myself and didn't get bent out of shape over those mainly because I'm not so thin skinned as some...ahem...other religious types. After all its just a movie. Where I get miffed is when some disparaging remark is made about Muslims or Islam and the racist card is thrown out or we're lectured by the liberal left on how we need to be more culturally sensitive.

Pogo said...

Since few people actually saw 'The Golden Compass', I am not surprised that the only movie in the past which is entirely anti-Christian didn't get a nod.

And what's so transgressive about being anti-Christian anyway? It only results in book deals, artricles published, movies made, and being invited to more parties. Oooooh, how courageous.

I'll be impressed when someone films Islamists abusing their women, shows how they remain mired in hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression, and mocks that they generally blow shit up they don't like, including themselves.

But they see the murder of Theo Van Gogh and wisely figure they'll do it the easy way. No balls at all.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Actually quite a good pro-Christian move was Chronicles of Narnia so we infidels have our one to hold up.

LutherM said...

The best pro-Christian movie I have seen is "The Gospel According to St. Matthew" by Pier Paolo Pasolini, which, if viewed, would be an antidote to any deleterious effects from all "ten".

Troy said...

I'm not sure if it's anti-Christian, though I'm sure one could make the argument, but "Frailty" -- with Matthew McCona-whatever and Bill Paxton was a great movie.

Freder Frederson said...

I'm not sure if it's anti-Christian, though I'm sure one could make the argument, but "Frailty" -- with Matthew McCona-whatever and Bill Paxton was a great movie.

Not to give away the ending (so don't read this if you haven't seen the movie, which is very good)--but the twist at the end clearly indicates that the demons were real and his father was not psychotic but really was getting his instructions from God, and that the task of slaying demons, including Fenton, had been passed down to Adam.

George said...

The 1976 movieThe Message--the life story of Muhammad--starring Anthony Quinn.

In accordance with Muslim beliefs, Mohammed could not be depicted on screen nor could his voice be heard. This rule extended to his seven wives, his daughters and his sons-in-law. This left Mohammed's uncle as the central character. In the completed film, actors speak directly to the camera and then nod to un-heard dialogue.

--

The movie was supposed to premiere in London on 29 July 1976 as Mohammed, Messenger of God; the theater received bomb threats because Mohammed's name was in the title. The British distributor had the sense to change the name of the film in Great Britain to The Message, which apparently placated the people who had sent the threats. The reviews were bad, but the movie attracted a fairly large audience (the Medveds suggest that rich Middle Easterners vacationing in London formed the majority of the viewers). However, when the film went to the U.S. and the Arab world, the reviews were even worse. Americans felt the movie was so reverential as to be completely lifeless, while much of the Muslim world did not consider it to be nearly reverential enough. The Supreme Council of the World Mosque Conference in Mecca and the National Assembly of Pakistan both banned the film; the scholars in Cairo who had previously approved the script now called the movie "an insult to Islam." (However, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's library catalog notes that "The lifestyle of 7th Century Mecca and Medina, to the extent that it is known, is vividly recreated with few goofs. Quotations from the Qur'an and the Hadith are exact.")

In Washington, D.C., a group of black Muslims invaded the B'nai B'rith building and two others with plenty of weaponry, taking more than 100 hostages. When they gave their demands to the media, the chief one was a plea for the cancellation of the American premiere of Mohammad: Messenger of God. These terrorists were members of the small Hanafi sect and were led by Khalifa Hamaas Abdul Khaalis, one of its founders. Khaalis objected to the film on several grounds, including the very idea that Mohammed could be "played by an actor" (so obviously Khaalis knew only the rumors about the film). The first showing at the Hollywood Paramount theater, the film was stopped 35 minutes into its first show and the audience's money refunded, with the theater manager citing a "small political problem." [The director] Akkad offered to show the movie to the gunmen and hostages in Washington and said "I will destroy the film if it is offensive to them," but his proposal was turned down. Instead, the terrorists arranged phone calls to ambassadors of Muslim nations, as well as a few in-person meetings with diplomats who promised to do their best to keep the movie from being shown; after these promises, Khaalis and company surrendered. (Khaalis was sentenced to "21 to 120 years" for his part in these events.)

Clearly not an in-flight movie.

Bob said...

I think I must be one of the few people to have seen that Canterbury Tales movie, back in '81 when I was in school during my US Navy service. The monk-shitting scene is from a tour of Hell: Your Majesty! Show this monk where the Devil keeps monks in Hell!

The humor is of a juvenile nature, very Howard Stern: flatulence jokes, etc., with cuts of Chaucer snickering over his manuscripts as he writes this silliness down.

Palladian said...

To call the thoroughly 17th century Protestant scene of friars flying out of Satan's nether regions "anti-Christian" would merit derision as a laughably shallow analysis if it weren't coming from New York Magazine. As it is coming from New York Magazine, where laughably shallow is the prime directive, no further comment is necessary.

Half of these are anti-Catholic rather than anti-Christian. Can New York Magazine tell the difference? Are these supposedly "anti-Christian" films critical or derisive of the central message of the Gospels? That to me would be the definition of "anti-Christian".

Just because a film or book casts a particular sect or practice in a negative light does not necessarily make it anti-Christian.

From Inwood said...

Great comments by Pogo, Hoosier, & Palladian.

I think it was Schlesinger, Jr. who said that “anti-Catholicism is the anti Semitism of the Intellectuals” Of course that was before they became anti-Semitic again, or at least anti-Israel.

As someone once noted, to the learned chattering class, including the MSM, & to real artists, the history of the RC Church is summed up in crazed martyred zealots whose body parts must be worshiped by sheepish communicants conversing in Latinate mumbo jumbo, evil popes, anti-science clergy, politicized cardinals & bishops, abusive teaching priests, brothers & nuns, and, the piece de resistance, the Inquisition.

Others have noted that Evangelicals must always be shown as just one step out of the ooze. (Apparently, they can’t dance out of the ooze.)

Islamofascists & Muslim fundamentalists? Let’s not make trouble, my dears. They may be referred to only in comparison to RCs & Christian fundamentalists & where such Christians are shown to be the real evil ones.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Islamofascists & Muslim fundamentalists? Let’s not make trouble, my dears. They may be referred to only in comparison to RCs & Christian fundamentalists & where such Christians are shown to be the real evil ones.

Good point. You will see this all the time when Islamic terrorists strike, the knee jerk reaction is to condemn all religion as if somehow, Christians, Hindus, Jews etc., all hold some collective blame for the act. I’m sure some of you have seen that bumper sticker (usually on a Volkswagon complete with dashboard flower) that says COEXIST where the letters coexist are religious symbols (cross=T, Star of David=X ying-yang =O, crescent =C etc.) and it’s really cute until 5 seconds of critical thinking would show that there is really only one of those religions which seems to have a hard time co-existing with anyone other than themselves and even then….

It would be nice just to see a little honesty from Hollywood and the left as to why Christianity is fair game yet Islam is that which not be mocked.

Pogo said...

I agree.

"COEXIST" mostly means "capitulate to their demands so the explosions will stop"

Freder Frederson said...

I’m sure some of you have seen that bumper sticker (usually on a Volkswagon complete with dashboard flower) that says COEXIST where the letters coexist are religious symbols (cross=T, Star of David=X ying-yang =O, crescent =C etc.) and it’s really cute until 5 seconds of critical thinking would show that there is really only one of those religions which seems to have a hard time co-existing with anyone other than themselves and even then

Well gee Hoosier, it's kind of ironic that you would pick a car company that was originally promoted by Hitler to make the argument that only Muslims can't get along with other religions.

Of course we won't even mention that after 700 long years of struggle the Protestents and Catholics in Ireland have finally reached an accomodation. Or that in India, Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims are equally likely to start violence against each other. Or that we intervened in two countries in the former Yugoslovia in the '90s to prevent the slaughter of Muslims by Orthodox Christians and Catholics.

Freder Frederson said...

Sorry, the Protestents and Catholics in Ireland have only been fighting for 400 years.

Trooper York said...

King of Kings is a very confusing film. Staring the talented Jeffrey Hunter who has given us the definite portrait of a starship captain who was succored by space aliens, he plays a strange and unfamiliar role. It depicts the life of a minor cult figure who founded a religion which evidently has many adherents out in the great nebulous area between New York and California. I don’t know anyone who worships him, since everyone I know is of course Jewish.
(I Lost it at the Movies, Pauline Kael)

Paddy O. said...

I see these movies as anti-church, but not really anti-Christian. Anti-Christian would be attacking something that I hold close as an identifying mark of Christian faith.

These movies, almost all of them, show aspects of religion that I would join in rejecting. They show the corruption and the ignorance and distortion. Saying these are anti-Christian is sort of like saying 1 Corinthians 5 is anti-Christian.

B said...

My kids were in a (state)college production of Footloose. Over 200 of their church friends came to see them - and loved it. The sense of the story - at least in the musical - is of a pastor who's life has been so shattered by the death of his son that he can no longer see straight, and thus becomes a wounded, petty man.

The church friends loved it.

Loved Carrie. I believe that everyone in the theater when I saw it jumped approx 6 inches in their seats at the grave scene.

The remaining films on the list:

yawn.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Well gee Hoosier, it's kind of ironic that you would pick a car company that was originally promoted by Hitler to make the argument that only Muslims can't get along with other religions.

Gee Freder, you're right. In fact, I'm even more amazed that a car promoted by Der Fuhrer himself would still be manufactured today, much less ridden by predominantly crunchy granola types.

Of course we won't even mention that after 700 long years of struggle the Protestents and Catholics in Ireland have finally reached an accomodation.

Interesting. Then again, how much of the Troubles were related to religion as opposed to loyalty to the English Crown versus an independent Ireland. But then it was easier to couch nationalism as a war of religion. Easier to mark each side eh? Sinn Fein and the IRA didn't care as much about religion as they did over national allegience

Or that in India, Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims are equally likely to start violence against each other.

Yes Freder, the fact that all religions can start violence against each other isn't a revelation. I think if you ask the average Hindu who they see as the dire threat I'm betting even money the Sikhs come in a distant second to the Religion of Peace.

Or that we intervened in two countries in the former Yugoslovia in the '90s to prevent the slaughter of Muslims by Orthodox Christians and Catholics.

Don't confuse ethnic cleansing with religion. Hitler didn't kill Jews because of their relgion but because of who they were.

Smilin' Jack said...

I can't believe they passed over "Marjoe," which won the Oscar for best documentary in 1972. On the surface it's an evisceration of evangelicals, but it's also fascinating and thought-provoking on many other levels.

Freder Frederson said...

Then again, how much of the Troubles were related to religion as opposed to loyalty to the English Crown versus an independent Ireland. But then it was easier to couch nationalism as a war of religion.

Considering that throughout much of history church and state were barely distinguishable and the Crown and and the Church were in fact the same thing (and in fact the Queen is still the head of the Church of England and Great Britain has an official church), opposition to the Crown was opposition to the Church, wasn't it?

Pogo said...

Considering that throughout much of history church and state were...

If only the left had as keen an interest in present-day Islamic religious fascism as they do with the religious wars of the West from centuries past.

Freder Frederson said...

Don't confuse ethnic cleansing with religion. Hitler didn't kill Jews because of their relgion but because of who they were.

That's right, Hitler killed the Jews because they were responsible for the German defeat in WWI, communism, Versailles, and the economic disasters of the '20s. And the Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia are of a different racial heritage than the Christians there--religion had nothing to do with it.

Freder Frederson said...

If only the left had as keen an interest in present-day Islamic religious fascism as they do with the religious wars of the West from centuries past.

If only the right would stop pretending that Christians had never committed an atrocity or killed anyone in the name of Christ or had their own bloody religious wars (and not hundreds of years ago but in the very recent past), we wouldn't have to keep reminding you.

And when have I ever justified, excused, supported or even implied that Islamic terrorism, fundamentalism and extremism is a good thing? (No matter what Cedarford thinks)

I don't call it fascism because I think "fascism" is a completely inappropriate term for the movement.

Pogo said...

we wouldn't have to keep reminding you

It's all the modern left ever does.

jkell63615 said...

I loved CARRIE too. I thought the portrayal od Margaret White was far too over-the-top to be taken seriously. Piper Laurie's a great actress, but I think she overdid it on MW.

How about the ten most anti-Christian episodes of LAW AND ORDER? Er, never mind.

B said...

How about the ten most anti-Christian episodes of LAW AND ORDER?

I know which 3 I'd pick right off the bat.

How about the top anti-semitic LAW and ORDER episodes?

Funny, whenever something on Law and Order comes close to dealing with terrorism, there's always a twist to a neocon or (what could easily be taken to be) a Christian bad guy.


Hmmmm. Why is that?

knoxwhirled said...

I loved CARRIE too. I thought the portrayal of Margaret White was far too over-the-top to be taken seriously. Piper Laurie's a great actress, but I think she overdid it on MW.


Well, I'd argue that (the awesome) Piper Laurie was purposely camping it up quite a bit. In a lot of those early de Palma movies, the "over-the-top" factor is a favorite technique of his. I think of "Carrie" as sort of an unofficial trilogy that also includes "Dressed to Kill" (my personal favorite) and "Blow Out."

knoxwhirled said...

I'll be impressed when someone films Islamists abusing their women, shows how they remain mired in hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression, and mocks that they generally blow shit up they don't like, including themselves.

Me too... and we can share a sno-cone when hell freezes over.

I finally saw "Lives of Others" last night. I remembered the amazement in some circles that such a blatantly anti-communist movie had won an Oscar. My theory is that Hollywood *loved* that the movie portrays the "artistic" community--specifically writers, directors, etc.--as dangerous rebels and politically brave.

Maybe if someone can come up with a movie that similarly aggrandizes the performing arts -- and happens to have an anti-terrorist message -- there's a chance of it being made. Hollywood swoons for that sh*t.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Considering that throughout much of history church and state were barely distinguishable and the Crown and and the Church were in fact the same thing ..... opposition to the Crown was opposition to the Church, wasn't it?

Yes indirectly although to imply that the issues in Northern Ireland as 'religious' rather than political is a bit of stretch. The issue then and now has always been of an independent Ireland rather than a Catholic one. I'm assuming you know enough about the history of Ireland and English colonization to know that couching the conflict as Catholics vs Protestants is a bit disingenuous.

That's right, Hitler killed the Jews because they were responsible for the German defeat in WWI, communism, Versailles, and the economic disasters of the '20s.

Well he certainly didn't shy away from claiming any of those reasons when he was dictating Mein Kampf so yes. Then again he also adhered to the tried and true stereotypes of the Jews running everything:

What had to be reckoned heavily against the Jew in my eyes was when I became acquainted with their activity in the press, art, literature, and the theater. . .And when I learned to look for the Jew in all branches of cultural and artistic life and its various manifestations, I suddenly encountered him in a place where I would least have expected to find him. . . When I recognized the Jew as the leader of the Social Democracy, the scales dropped form my eyes. A long soul struggle had reached its conclusion. Mein Kampf

Freder, you know as well as I do that most of the anti-Semitism out there has almost nothing to do with the Jewish religion.

And the Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia are of a different racial heritage than the Christians there--religion had nothing to do with it.

Yes Freder, Bosnians and Kosovars are of a different ethnic group than Serbians. Ethnicity is different than race. The former having a largely Muslim population and the latter being Orthodox Christian. Kind of like Germany was mostly Protestant and Poland mostly Catholic although that wasn't the reason Hitler decided to murder 12 million Poles because of allegiance to the Pope.

Yugoslavia was a Frankenstein monster of multi-ethnic groups who had little love for each other, religion notwithstanding.

Hoosier Daddy said...

If only the right would stop pretending that Christians had never committed an atrocity or killed anyone in the name of Christ or had their own bloody religious wars (and not hundreds of years ago but in the very recent past), we wouldn't have to keep reminding you.

Define Christian bloody religious war of the recent past.

No one denies the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity but it does get tiresome when you have to go back to the fucking 30 years war which ended in 1648 to make the equivalency with the nihilism being committed in the name of Islam in the 21st century.

Freder Frederson said...

Freder, you know as well as I do that most of the anti-Semitism out there has almost nothing to do with the Jewish religion.

Yep, it has to do with the fact that they killed Christ and they use Christian babies to make their matza. As for the ethnicity of the various groups in Yugoslovia, their ethnicity is defined by their religion, Orthodox, Catholic, or Muslim. When you have two villages a couple kilometers apart, one with a mosque, one with a church, the ethnic and cultural differences is almost entirely the result of their religion.

The same goes for Ireland. Being Catholic meant you were a native of Ireland, which meant you were subject to British rule and oppressed by the British. Is it any wonder that the struggle developed into a sectarian one and that when granted independence the more prosperous and "British" northern counties did not want to become part of the Catholic south--which as is shown in the Magdeline Sisters quickly became a defacto theocracy until well into the 1960's (even though the leaders of the revolution actually had very little time for the Catholic Church).

Freder Frederson said...

No one denies the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity but it does get tiresome when you have to go back to the fucking 30 years war which ended in 1648 to make the equivalency with the nihilism being committed in the name of Islam in the 21st century.

Didn't we just go over the situation in the former Yugoslavia? AQ still needs to double their death toll in the U.S. before they reach the documented number of lynchings between the 1880's and 1968. More recently we have Oklahoma City (where at least Terry McNichols was motivated by Christian Identity ideology), The Olympic Park Bombing, various abortion clinic bombings and the murder of several doctors.

Blake said...

Clearly not an in-flight movie.

Ooh. Snap!

Blake said...

This...is a very bad list.

Carrie is less anti-Christian than, say, The Mist, which actually has people forming a church for the purpose of sacrificing people.

John Lithgow is clearly redeemed at the end of Footloose. Christianity becomes a vehicle for him to project his anger, not the cause of it. So it's more a condemnation of groupthink. (Anyone know when the last time a bonified city outlawed dancing was?)

The premise of Dogma is not only that Christianity is true but that Catholicism is really the voice of God on earth. (For those who haven't seen it, it involves a "loophole" in dogmatic law.) The entire movie sinks if you don't accept that basic principle. (That the writers couldn't grasp the essentially simple plot doesn't speak particularly well of them.)

A lot of these movies are not about how bad Christianity or religion is, but how bad humans can screw things up.

This is not revelatory. It is sometimes entertaining, however.

Blake said...

By the way, even the Pythons don't agree on whether Life of Brian is blasphemous. I would bet that extends to The Meaning of Life as well.

From Inwood said...

Trooper York

Priceless! Your 12:04 post, that is.

Trooper York said...

Thanks, I glad you got the reference. Carry on.

peter hoh said...

Seems to me that there are many more movies made that reinforce the Christian message than those that undermine it. As others have pointed out, a good number of this top ten are critical of anti-Christian behavior within the church, which is different than being anti-Christian.

ricpic said...

Jeffrey Hunter: one of the great religious mysteries.

The mind asks: why?

To which there is no answer, only silence.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I said:Freder, you know as well as I do that most of the anti-Semitism out there has almost nothing to do with the Jewish religion.

Then Freder saidYep, it has to do with the fact that they killed Christ and they use Christian babies to make their matza

I guess we're done with the rational discussion. I think some Nazis actually used that excuse, or maybe it was Islamists (Elders of the Protocols of Zion)..I get confused sometimes.

AQ still needs to double their death toll in the U.S. before they reach the documented number of lynchings between the 1880's and 1968.

Yeah and they all did that in the name of Jesus Christ. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Considering that 18 Islamofascists did half that body count in a 1/2 day that some dumb ass bumpkins in white sheets managed in a century in a half shows how lame your argument is.

And you have a Happy New Year.

Freder Frederson said...

I guess we're done with the rational discussion.

You have repeatedly stated that antisemitism has nothing to do with the Jewish religion and keep insisting I should know what it is the result of. I am honestly baffled as to what it is. I keep hoping Cedarford will stop by and let us know why Jews are so universally hated, and why it has nothing to do with their religion.

Considering that 18 Islamofascists did half that body count in a 1/2 day that some dumb ass bumpkins in white sheets managed in a century in a half shows how lame your argument is.

If you think the legacy of lynching in this country is all about "dumb ass bumpkins in white sheets" then you know nothing about the history of this country or even your own state (I assume you are from Indiana). Google "lynching photographs" and you will learn that lynchings were often public events attended by hundreds of people (women and children included) and cause for a picnic. Postcards of the lynchings were often made and proudly sent to friends and family.

And that you deny the Christian connection of the KKK--which saw and still sees itself as defending white protestant Christian values--again demonstrates your apparently willful ignorance of history.

Paddy O. said...

Freder, atheist Jews were victims of anti-semitism as much as practicing Jews. Being Jewish is a category not entirely encapsulated by religion. They are a people not just a religion and thus are persecuted as a people, no matter what their religious views are.

As far as lynching there's no doubt that KKK used Christianity. But to say that it was religiously motivated is absurd. What was the religion of most of those lynched? Christianity. Both sides were Christian and almost entirely Christian sharing the same creeds. White methodists lynched black methodists. White baptists lynched black baptists. They had different congregations but the same religion.

Evil, to be sure, but not religiously motivated. And indeed, a great deal of Civil Rights and, earlier, abolitionist actions were Christian based. For every KKK using Christianity there were a lot more blacks and whites fighting for civil rights on religious grounds.

Revenant said...

I didn't bother seeing "The Golden Compass", although I loved the books. That being said, my understanding from friends who DID see it is that the anti-Christian content of the book was purged from the film.

The trilogy, especially the second and third books, is definitely quite strongly anti-Christian, though. Shockingly enough, the Catholic League finally got something right.