Gender Imagery in Film, Pt. 6: Conclusion (Child Sacrifice and Supposed Female Dominance)

Interlaced into the aforementioned circumcision incident, the viewer is hit with the most devastating blow of the film: She watched her son fall out of the window to his death, and did nothing. The flashbacks to the prologue are cut at a different time and a different angle, revealing new information for our digestion. Even if we were sympathetic throughout the journey as She tortured her husband, identifying, even commiserating, with her internal psychological struggles, we are now left feeling like the carpet was pulled out from under our feet, leaving us dumbfounded and foolish for having even attempted to make a connection with her pitiful soul. She makes Disney’s Maleficent look like an innocent little angel – for what kind of wickedness it must take to watch your child die and not even make an attempt to stop it. On the contrary, it appears that she even gained pleasure at the moment in watching the event unfold before her – possibly provoked by the same boorish drive that led Abraham to nearly sacrifice his son, Isaac.[1]

Between the violent content of most modern action films and the images of trauma and catastrophe that the mainstream media displays, it is quite easy for the typical moviegoer to tolerate and even get pleasure from violence in film. Von Trier was not shocking anybody by depicting a woman who beats up her husband and consequently not leaving his mark on the viewer’s mind. Like Cruella de Vil and her nastiness toward puppies, the way to truly make She a hated character was to have her embody the unthinkable. Once this information is brought to light, She loses all likability, and von Trier’s goal of equating woman with all that is wicked and vile has been accomplished.

Left to her own devices, the Antichrist will reject nature, and her natural position as subordinate to man, and turn to a practice of dominance over all. Viewers can begin to see this unfold in Chapter Two as She becomes more deeply driven into her own mania. At the same time, the surrounding environment becomes increasingly more hostile toward He, visually tying her trip down the slippery slope toward iniquity to the effects on man in the world. Acorns begin to pelt the cabin, He begins to get bitten by some large beetle-like bugs, baby birds get eaten alive by ants and other birds of prey, and as the chapter progresses toward the next chapter, we begin to see the forest literally begin to fall apart. A wide panning shot of the forest floor shows the son, dressed in the same pajamas as in the beginning of the film, carrying his teddy bear, and glowing, walking, presumably, away from his mother – perhaps indicating that he is attempting to escape her dominance. It provides another new insight into the child’s death – that maybe the son was actually attempting to escape his own situation

In Chapter 3, He discovers from the autopsy report that the bones in his son’s feet were deformed and then finds numerous photographs amongst his wife’s study materials that show his son’s shoes on the wrong feet. In a reversal of the practice of feet binding of women, She has instead exerted her influence over her son by binding his feet. It is unclear exactly why She bound her child’s feet, but it can be certain that it was done purposely, further lending credence to the notion that the son was making an attempt to escape his mother’s power. Upon learning of this torture, He feels the whole of the forest’s acorns pelting his flesh – he has come to realize that his wife is the architect of destruction – and he is afraid.

She continues to enact dominance over her male counterparts further into Chapter Three, primarily through sex, even making an argument that her husband doesn’t love her because he refuses to hit her during sex. In a drastic display, She runs into the woods and, again associating her ties with nature, masturbates violently while wrapped up in the exposed roots of giant tree. He follows her out, compelled by her sexual urges, and engages her in sexual intercourse, while also folding to her wishes to hit her. As they perform, limbs of immobile bodies are seen knotted like branches into the tree – the seemingly dead arms signify yet another connection between her sexual drive and the deaths of the many.

Afraid that He is going to leave, She attacks him with a block of wood, even smashing his penis, knocking him unconscious. Again, driven by sex, unable to refrain, she proceeds to masturbate him until he ejaculates blood onto her clothing. She then proceeds to drill a hole in his leg and, roughly mimicking the crucifixion, inserts a metal rod attached to a heavy round drum, fastens a nut to the other side, and disposes of the wrench. He is left, quite literally, anchored down and prevented from leaving her. However, he does make an attempt at escape by dragging himself into the woods and hiding in a hole in the ground. Pulling away from the Adam and Eve myth and moving toward the tale of Jesus, the rod in the leg symbolizes the torture and crucifixion of Jesus, while the husband’s escape mimics the New Testament tale of the via dolorosa, or “way of suffering,”[2] as Jesus supposedly dragged himself and his cross, essentially, to his grave. While in the hole, He sees one of the three beggars, the crow, and for fear that the crow will expose him, he attempts to beat it to death. The crow is resurrected and She digs him out of his “tomb.” Once more, Antichrist is connecting the end of paradise to another aspect of religion and life – he, like many prophets and scribes before him, makes a connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament, however factually unsubstantiated and horrifically arrogant it may be.

In the end, Antichrist puts forth the notion that had Adam destroyed Eve, women would not have suffered over 2 millennia of hate and violence. On the contrary, woman would have been free to reclaim her position alongside man as a co-leader over nature. Ultimately, it is man’s job to free woman, as He freed his wife from her own torment, thus releasing a multitude of faceless women back into civility. As a man, director von Trier created a piece of art, aimed at other men, that allows them to affirm their own internal misogyny and to reestablish the social rules by which they live their lives. As Sturken and Cartwright note, “In the history of art, the fact that paintings were geared toward male viewers had as much to do with the commerce of art as it did with the social roles and sexual stereotypes of men and women”[3] – the same would hold true for moving picture media, as the most common method of conveying social meaning today. It is clear that the movie is intended to have male spectators, as the male part is characterized by rationale and seen, though very blasé, to be the film’s hero, and in turn the hero over nature, life, and misogyny. If a woman were to adapt a male looking gaze, she may well end up as She had, upon assuming the male gaze over her study materials: detesting herself and women alike for the “wrongs” of which they supposedly committed.

Ultimately, the final statement of Antichrist, and in turn, on Eden and life, is that everything that was once beautiful is no longer – and this is the fault of Eve. Von Trier’s morality makes women out to be immoral and malevolent and in turn removes himself and his male counterparts from any blame. This attitude can be easily summed up through Nietzsche’s view that in every artistic morality, “man adores part of himself as God and to that end needs to diabolicize the rest.”[4] We no longer require the Bible to tell us that women are the destroyers of paradise, because we have Lars von Trier. Let Antichrist serve as a warning of the effects of religious fear-mongering. In the words of the late, great comedian, George Carlin, “The Christians are coming, and they are not pleasant people.”[5]

-------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] HarperCollins, Genesis 22:1-24
[2] HarperCollins, John 19:17-37
[3] Sturken and Cartwright, 79.
[4] Nietzsche, 152.
[5] Carlin, 8.

Gender Imagery in Film, Pt. 5: Self-Mutilation and Female Circumcision

Religion has never been a stranger to self-torture and mutilation. This is particularly true of the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In his infamous work Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche states, “From the start, the Christian faith is a sacrifice: a sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit; at the same time, enslavement and self-mockery, self-mutilation.”[1] In many instances, the self-torture is one that is purely psychological: fear of Hell; fear of physical torture; fear of fire and brimstone; self-censorship and anxiety over “impure thoughts;” &c. In other instances, the focus is on the physical shell. Certain sects of Catholicism have been known to practice self-flagellation as a form of repentance. Muslims, particularly radical Muslims, have been increasingly involved in suicide missions to promote their faith – suicide bombing arguably being the ultimate form of self-mutilation. Male circumcision is certainly a form of mutilation and, though it is typically performed on children and not self-inflicted, it can be if older men  decide to have it done. Female circumcision is another animal altogether, with consequences far more destructive than that of male circumcision. Perhaps it can be considered ironic, or, at the least, a contradiction in terms, that God allows us to slice skin off of our sons’ penises while insisting that our body is a temple.[2] In any event, the notion of physical mutilation is surely on familiar terms with religion.

Though Antichrist offers an overflowing handful of graphic violence in the second half of the film, it is the self-inflicted female circumcision scene that is almost certainly the most stomach churning and, arguably, the most misogynistic. If only one scene in the history of film had to be chosen to depict the culmination of hundreds of years of religious intolerance, resulting in an unmistakable fear and self-loathing instilled into the minds of women, it could be this horrendously vivid scene. By depicting an act so heinous, one that is still occurring in many cultures and subcultures today worldwide for a variety of reasons, von Trier is drawing a straight line connecting woman’s wickedness with her clitoris. The oppression of the woman, Antichrist purports, is a direct result of the intensity derived from her pleasure center. A pleasure center that, by the way, still baffles scientific minds today.

Building up to the aforementioned circumcision, She physically and emotionally tortures her husband, and begins to torture herself emotionally. Her sexual impulses drive her psychotic behavior and upon realizing that her desire for sexual pleasure is the cause of her son’s death, shown through flashbacks to the prologue, she grabs a pair of rusty shears, conveniently located underneath her buttocks. Once She has removed her clitoris, He is able to “free” countless women – women without faces, without identities, without any direct connection to Eve – from the bonds of their own self-hatred.

Despite being as gruesome a scene as any horror film one, further speculation of the entire sequence reveals something rather laughable: von Trier is a complete narcissist. As She inflicts the wound on herself, it is He who gets the credit for freeing the women enslaved to their own desires, not She. He wins. Yes, this is still misogyny, but the root must certainly be von Trier's own narcissism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Nietzsche, 250.

[2] HarperCollins, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Gender Imagery in Film, Pt. 3

The characterization of witches, faeries, wicked stepmothers, and other negative roles for women play into all forms of commercially available art, especially film. Disney’s animated films could warrant a paper on misogynistic imagery in and of itself. For example, many of the Disney villains are actually villainesses. Lady Tremaine from Cinderella[1] is the ultimate evil stepmother: self-centered, tyrannical, power hungry, and a backstabber to boot. The Queen from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs[2] is willing to have her stepdaughter murdered to feed her own ego. The tale combines imagery of witchcraft (the magic mirror on the wall) with allusions to women’s desire for preening and narcissism. Half-woman, half-octopus Ursula from Disney’s The Little Mermaid[3] is a combination of similar misogynist stereotypes from tales of witchcraft and Biblical stories. Ursula is an evil sorceress who is arguably the least attractive of the villainesses, being half-octopus, overweight, and with a stereotypical lesbian short haircut and a big mole on her face. Her two cohorts are eels, or water serpents, mimicking the serpent of the Genesis myth. Cruella De Vil is a villainess so evil, she kills puppies. Like Ursula, she has short, grey (or white) hair, and has decidedly inhuman features. Cruella’s face is more demonic, or even witch-like, and her demeanor is quite psychotic. Like Lady Tremaine, Cruella’s only concern is for wealth and status, without concern for who gets hurt along the way[4]. The typical association of selfishness without regard to female characters is yet again linked to the tale of Eve’s selfishness in Genesis.

Perhaps the villainess who portrays evil in the most magnificent way is the stunning Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty[5]. She embodies the attributes of the aforementioned desperadas, while throwing in a few accoutrements at no extra cost. Maleficent damns a baby to exile and death, practices sorcery, and eventually turns into a giant serpent-like dragon in an attempt to distinguish the fair prince. She is drawn with typical Christian imagery influenced features normally associated with Lucifer (who is often considered to be the serpent of the Genesis myth, though there is no real link between the two in the original text), as she is tall, thin, and beautiful with horns and seen as leading little goblin-like demons. Revelation 12:9 describes both Satan as a dragon and the presence of his angels: “The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan… and his angels were thrown down with him.[6]” If the visuals were not enough, Maleficent even summons upon “all the powers of hell.” She immeasurably reflects the traditional Christian view of both Satan and the woman as an evil entity. In all cases mentioned, these womanly villains are obsessed with wickedness and their psychotic personas are reflected not only in their actions, but in their appearances as well.

The measure of a female character’s evilness is not the end of the measure of a film’s misogyny factor, however. The relatively recent saturation of “chick flicks” has solidified the American female stereotype of a dimwitted, appearance- and shoe-obsessed shopaholic. Female roles are so standardized in the Romantic Comedy genre, they might as well come with labels from major market brands or advertisement agencies, showing them to be exact replicas of each other, produced in bulk for the cinematic masses. Any given film starring the likes of Jennifer Lopez, Sandra Bullock, or Matthew McConaughey, et al., is sure to have similar themes, similar visuals, similar dialogue, and similar characters: the sassy black friend; the self-absorbed blonde bimbo; the single, childless businesswoman; the sex-obsessed ethnic minority. By characterizing women in a way that says, “proper women must fit into these rigidly defined categories,” the film industry, and the “chick flick” subgenre in particular, are pulling out the stops, and spreading this misogyny thickly onto the female moviegoer, in a most ridiculous, non-romantically-comedic manner.

Returning to Disney’s animated classics, the positions of the central female characters, often princesses, though not evil, are very descriptive about gender roles and gender neutrality. Snow White and Cinderella, for example, are both women who work as slaves, but in two different capacities. Cinderella is quite literally a slave to her stepmother and stepsisters. She is treated not as a member of the family but instead as an insignificant worker bee who is unworthy to partake in their life of luxury, which is actually the result of her father’s fortune. Cinderella accepts her situation, but hopes that someday a prince will rescue her. Snow White, in a similar fashion, struggles with stepmother issues, only to a more serious extent. She, like Cinderella, accepts this fate, and in the meantime, takes over the household chores for a group of seven male strangers, while waiting around to be rescued from herself by a handsome and wealthy prince. Little girls grow up seeing these images of women, even as members of royalty, as slaves to household duties. And nearly all of the Disney classics enforce the notion that to live happily ever after, the woman needs to marry a man of wealth and status. A surprising converse would be the tale of Aladdin, wherein the wealthy princess, Jasmine, rejects the attempts of her father to have her marry into wealth, and instead falls in love with and marries a poor street kid [do not be mistaken, however, Aladdin is not without its faults. It may be one of the most racially controversial Disney films, as Aladdin, Jasmine, and the Sultan are all seemingly white characters, not Arabic. The only dark skinned character is, of course, the evil character, Jafar][7].

The typical Disney princess, including both Cinderella and Snow White, as well as Aurora (Sleeping Beauty), Belle (from Beauty and the Beast[8]), and Ariel (The Little Mermaid), have issues relating to their fathers. In some cases the father is dead or missing, and in others he is distant or easily disappointed. The only way for the princess to find genuine happiness is to find another man, similar to her father in status, to whisk her away to a magic life full of true love and animals with human traits. The princess will know true love as soon as Mr. Right arrives – there is no need to bother with dating, introductions to friends and family, and definitely no reason to ask any “get-to-know-you” questions. It is important for the princess to not waste any time with formalities, because she could end up single – then who would save her from herself when she begins her immoral metamorphosis into pure sin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Cinderella, dir. Clyde Geronimi, et al., perf. Ilene Woods, VHS, Disney, 1950.
[2] Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, writ. Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, perf. Adriana Caselotti, VHS, Disney, 1937.
[3] The Little Mermaid, dir. Ron Clement and John Musker, perf. Jodi Benson and Pat Carroll, VHS, Disney, 1989.
[4] 101 Dalmatians, dir. Clyde Geronimi, et al., perf. Betty Lou Gerson, VHS, Disney, 1961.
[5] Sleeping Beauty, dir. Clyde Geronimi, perf. Eleanor Audley and Mary Costa, VHS, Disney, 1959.
[6] HarperCollins. Revelation 12:9
[7] Aladdin, dir. Ron Clements and John Musker, perf. Scott Weinger and Robin Williams, DVD, Disney, 1992.
[8] Beauty and the Beast, dir. Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, perf. Robby Benson and Paige O’Hara, VHS, Disney, 1991.

Gender Imagery in Film, Pt. 2

Generally speaking, major motion picture films originating in the U.S. tend to follow a template which varies only slightly based on the genre and intended audience. The template ensures that most American films feature white, middle class, heterosexual relationships and families, and often reference morality through the Christian faith. Even when breaking out of the "White America" template, such as many films aimed at black subcultures, the tendency to mimic the standard middle-class, white, suburban template is present – take, for instance, any of the many Tyler Perry Why Did I… films, only substituting black actors into the same cookie cutter roles. The templates can apply to films of all types and distinctions. There are even Biblical quotations and pseudo-quotations, sprinkled throughout many popular action films – films that have a rather violent nature – such as the presence of the “Our Father” prayer and the mention of Latin words Veritas and Aequitas (truth and justice) in The Boondock Saints[1] or the infamous scene in the 1994 cult classic film Pulp Fiction[2], where Jules Winnfield, played by Samuel L. Jackson, references Ezekiel 25:17, culminating in this gem: “And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you,” [note: writer-director Quentin Tarantino rewrote the verse for the film, thus the line that Jules utters is not an actual Biblical quote]. 

Women and gay (or effeminate) men typically represent frail characters, leaving the stronger hero-types to the macho male stars. Also, women often get cast as supporting characters rather than in a film’s protagonist leading roles, although there may be evidence to the contrary in recent years, or, at the very least, an increase in women as the leading character. In many films, not only are women depicted as minor characters, but at the same time as troublemakers or firebrands, often seducing the male hero away from his intended goal, thus creating the tension required for the film to grasp viewers’ attention. Even Comedian George Carlin commented on the tendency toward violence in male characters, as he wrote, “A long time ago in England a guy named Thomas Culpepper was hanged, beheaded, quartered, and disemboweled. Why do I have the impression women were not involved in these activities?”[3]. Historically, most atrocities have been committed by men – yet it is women who are considered less intelligent, less moral, and more malignant. This emphasis on the role of the woman as the bringer of disorder has strong Christian roots, which can be traced back to the Genesis story of Adam and Eve.

This standardization, this mass production (and subsequent mass consumption), of recycled plot lines is a strong indication of the acceptance of subpar and unoriginal artistic expression. Does this suggest that a viewer would have a discomfort with film that challenges the viewer’s morale standing? If so, is this an indication of a problem with the film, or with the viewer? One would assume that a viewer strong in his convictions would stand unmoved regardless of the message that a film’s images described. Perhaps more influential than the viewer’s morale code is a fear of the unknown – a fear that is ensconced into him as a child, perpetrated by the church, for the purpose of controlling his actions and molding him into the productive, unquestioning member of society that he is. Film, as a social discourse, in its current state, is being used to reinforce the same values that are being presented to the viewer in most, perhaps even all, aspects of life: his dominance as a male, her subordination to the male, his heterosexuality, his role as a provider for his family, her role as homemaker, his and her adherence to the law, his strong work ethic, her strong family ethic, his and her spirituality, his and her morality, etc. As a result, film enforces, or reinforces, existing prejudices and vanities.

The effects of male dominance for centuries may have roots that go back further than the Bible, yet, as today’s western society is primarily a Christian society, it is to the Bible that we must look for evidence. From the New Testament, Ephesians 5:23-24 establishes the husband as the governing body in a marriage, as “the husband is the head of the wife… wives should submit to their husbands in everything,” while 1 Peter 3:7 pronounces women as “the weaker partner.” 1 Corinthians 11:9-10 even states that woman was created for man, and should wear the mark of his authority on her head, read she shall wear her hair long. Women’s actions are also limited by the scriptures, wherein 1 Corinthians 14:34 asserts that women are not allowed to speak in church; 1 Timothy 2:12 subjects women to be silent in usurping a man’s authority and does not allow women to be teachers; 1 Timothy 5:11-15 assumes that any young woman who has been widowed is lustful and thus sinful, turning away to evil; Leviticus 12:1-5 and 15:19-32 regulate the actions of both men and women during the woman’s afterbirth period and monthly periods[4]. These are but a few examples from the Bible of the lessons to be learned about the role that women should play in the social order. These, and other passages, have led many church officials to lead the charge in the control, victimization, and persecution of women for a variety of reasons throughout history. 

In short, the misogynistic basis of many Biblical verses has translated into misogyny in practice. Though today we may learn from the images that we see more than the words we read, particularly words from religious texts, there is a definite connection between the two in relation to imagery. People making films and movies are influenced by the religious and cultural texts of their childhoods. The Bible, in the same way as poetry and creative writing, paints images through words–while we read words on paper, our brain pictures scenes, as if viewing them in person. These "word images," like regular images, can be a vigorous means of conveying a particular position, be it social, political, religious, or otherwise. Marita Sturken and Lisa Cartwright share the viewpoint that “images can both exert power and act as instruments of power,”[5] and, in reference to the Michel Foucault concept of the Panopticon, they stress that “power is most effective when it is invisible and unverifiable.”[6] What more effective way to exercise power and authority than to infuse words and images of an angry, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent supernatural being, who embodies very male characteristics and who is terribly unfavorable towards woman, into the public psyche?

Today, in a post-civil rights, post-women’s rights, and active gay rights, world, an overwhelming majority still cling to the fear-driven, barbaric concepts of female subordination and restriction as put forth hundreds, or even thousands, of years ago by Bedouin sheep herding tribes. Just as Jews have been persecuted by Christians for centuries as “Christ-killers,” so have women been demoralized and bastardized as the destroyers of paradise. The link between misogyny and homophobia can be contributed to the connection between what is female, what is feminine, and what is effeminate. With so much negativity throughout history against women, it follows that men who are considered to favor femininity and portray feminine qualities, would also be treated disapprovingly. The Apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach) states that “any iniquity is small compared to a woman’s iniquity”[7] and that “from a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die”[8]. 

The pattern of creating female characters in art, literature, film, and life that must be saved from themselves or are otherwise the main disseminators of sin, madness, evil, or whatever you may choose to call it, surely has ties to early religious depictions of women. Women who did not subscribe to the accepted socio-religious norm in the late 17th century were often labeled witches, hunted down, and burned alive. Less than one-third of the captured and convicted “witches” at the Salem Witch Trials were men[9]–a disproportionate number, indeed. The emphasis on what is good and what is evil and the need to classify and quantify, caused much more harm and discord than allowing original socio-political dissent to exist. I leave you with the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, who, in relation to the attitude of believing some particular to be inherently evil, wrote, “wherever this conception of good and evil rules, the ruination of individuals, their tribes and races, is near”[10].

----------------------
[1] The Boondock Saints, dir. Troy Duffy, perf. Willem Defoe, Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus, DVD, Franchise Pictures, 1999.
[2] Pulp Fiction, dir. Quentin Tarantino, perf. Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, John Travolta, and Bruce Willis, DVD, A Band Apart, 1994.
[3] Carlin, George. Napalm & Silly Putty. (New York: Hyperion, 2001), 101.
[4] The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version. San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 1989.
[5] Sturken, Marita and Lisa Cartwright, Practices of Looking: an Introduction to Visual Culture, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 93.
[6] Sturken and Cartwright, 99.
[7] HarperCollins. Ecclesiasticus 25:19
[8] HarperCollins. Ecclesiasticus 25:24
[9] Donna M. Campbell, "The Salem Witch Trials," Literary Movements. 21 Mar. 2010. Web. <http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/witch.htm>, 17 Apr. 2010.
[10] Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All-Too-Human, trans. Walter Kaufman (New York: The Modern Library, 1967), 147.

Gender Imagery in Film, Pt. 1

Several years ago, I took a class in political theory wherein we studied the ramifications of social and political imagery in film, TV, magazines, photography, art, and advertisements. We used the philosophical ideas of Michel Foucault, Walt Whitman, and Friedrich Nietzsche, among others, as a basis for interpreting the images we viewed. As an aside to the course, I'd like to continue critiques of social and political images in a variety of films and post my interprations here. Without pulling any punches early on (in an effort to lay the framework for this entire blog), I will use my first several posts related to this concept to discuss a hotly debated topic: gender imagery in the Bible. I'll use Lars Von Trier's Antichrist as the film in which biblical images are strongly depicted:


It is quite plausible that the Bible has done more harm to women than any other text in history. As an extension, the Bible has also propagated injury to other groups, including minorities and homosexuals. In fact, the god of the Old Testament is arguably the most homophobic, racist, misogynistic and vengeful character in literature as we know it. In his international bestseller, The God Delusion, Dr. Richard Dawkins describes this same character as “jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully” [1]. With that perspective in mind, it is no great surprise to read historical accounts of rape, murder, torture, genocide and other atrocities carried out in the name of Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter). Likewise, it carries on into today’s media reports, with the result that many viewers don’t even bat an eye upon hearing reports and seeing video clips of the seemingly endless massacres of men, women, and children in foreign countries – that is, unless the victims are culturally similar to the viewer (e.g, Americans seeing other Americans among the sufferers, Christians seeing other Christians being persecuted, etc.).

The overwhelming amount of acceptance of heinous acts committed in the name of God can likely be directly linked to the advertising of prejudice, fear, destruction and violence present in the Bible, chiefly the Old Testament, and to the promotion of such passages by the various churches in every city of the western world. Gallup Poll data released in 2011 indicates that 3 out of 10 Americans view the Bible as literally the words of God, while 5 in 10 view it as the inspired words of God[2]. However, a national Gallup Poll from 2000 found that the number of Americans who read the Bible on a regular basis is relatively low (59% read on occasion, 37% read regularly, contrasted with 41% who rarely, if ever read the Bible) and the number who engage in Bible study is even lower (14% of Americans claimed to be part of a Bible study group)[3], which indicates that other forms of social discourse are being utilized to teach citizens of the messages in religious texts and contexts. Without the need for statistical research, one can estimate that the percentage of Americans who own a television set and watch movies and television on a regular basic is considerably higher than the number who read the Bible. This being the case, it is to the television and film industry that I shall adjust the focus of this assessment, delving into a particular film later in the analysis, Lars von Trier’s Antichrist, in depth and scrutinizing the industry in general for evidence of religious iconography and imagery that both supports and critiques the Biblical view of the roles of women and men in society.

Part 2 coming shortly. Stay tuned. --Randy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. (New York: First Mariner Books, 2008) 51.
[2] Jones, Jeffrey M. "In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally," Gallup, July 8 2011, May 5 2012 http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/Say-Bible-Literally.aspx
[3] Gallup, Alec and Wendy W. Simmons, “Six in Ten Americans Read Bible at Least Occasionally,” Gallup, October 20 2000, May 6 2012 http://www.gallup.com/poll/2416/Six-Ten-Americans-Read-Bible-Least-Occasionally.aspx