It’s difficult to image a medieval world of pestilence, famine and no printing press, but according to directors, The Hughes Brothers, civilization will make an unlikely return in their film The Book of Eli. After an apocalyptical fire fell from the sky scorching the earth, Eli (Denzel Washington) received a prophetical word from God pointing him to a sacred book, the last King James Bible. Those who survived the fallout, rail against God who they blame for the disaster. The people proceed to burn all the Bibles into extinction. Eli’s find becomes a valuable relic. Carnegie (Gary Oldman), the local warlord, has been searching for Eli’s book for some time. He claims, “It’s not just a book, it’s a weapon.” In a world without hope, the sacred words bring power to the one who wields them.
Eli, on a mission from God to deliver the book safely to the west coast, has been walking the barren wasteland for thirty years, daily reading the book because, as he explains, it teaches him to treat others better than himself. Christian ethics, however, are far from the hearts of the many cannibal road warriors that Eli encounters along the journey. Eli, with surprising ninja skills, quickly disposes of them all in Mad Max fashion. Carnegie’s stepdaughter (Mila Kunis) joins Eli as he’s pursued across the desert.
This latter-day western—filmed in the dark and violent visual contrasts of a graphic novel, a la 300—is appropriately despairing, but the film’s latent bibliolatry is most concerning. Eli and Carnegie, like the Pharisees, “search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life (John 5:39-40).” Like so many, the Bible is worshiped as an important piece of literature, but they fail to know the One to whom it testifies. They believe, as D.A Carson writes of them, “Religion in general and Christianity in particular may have some instrumental value, but not much; religion may have some mythological value as that which represents the best and noblest in the human spirit.”[1] This deistic, Christ-less Christianity is not the cure for society’s ills as the prophet and his antagonist believe it to be, as evidenced by the closing scene. The credits roll as the sacred book is placed on a shelf next to the Koran and Torah, just another addition to the collection. Carson confirms, “Deism is not a halfway house between secularism and Christianity; it is in fact a form of secularism.”[2] In the end it is the “secular vision that wants Christianity to scuttle into the corner of the hearth by the coal shovel, conveniently out of the way of anything but private concerns.”[3] In a corner or on a bookshelf, a sacred book that’s revered merely for it words and not because it reveals the Word will never resuscitate a dying culture.
>The Anthropologist
[1] D.A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 116.
[2] Ibid., 118.
[3] Ibid., 119-120.
amen, well said.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by The Village Church and JimBoStewart, Dona Pugh. Dona Pugh said: Eli’s Bibliolatry: A Review of the Film “The Book of Eli” http://bit.ly/8xViWh @ villagechurchtx [...]
Great review, although I am not sure that we watched the same film. There certainly seemed to be something unique about the “New King James Version” that Eli was carrying verses the Tanakah and other religious books that ended up on the same shelf. Hence “the voice,” and the scene of mass printing, not to mention that the one sole book that was sought after was the Bible. Clearly the message of the film was that the Bible was the book that holds God’s message. I thought it was increasingly obvious throughout the film that it was indeed the message within the book that held meaning rather than the “words” themselves. For example, there is that great scene where Carniege is face to face with Eli and he wants the book so that he can “know the words” to influence the people. It seems that there was a clear distinction between some one who “knew the words” (Carniege) and someone who “believed the message” (Eli).
All of this is to say that I wasn’t convinced that the final scene of the film was communicating that the Bible was just another religious book. In fact, the scene immediately preceding was the mass printing scene. The combination of the two could suggest that IF you didn’t know better then the Bible would just be another religious book on the shelf.
As far as whether or not the film promotes “bibliolatry,” probably, after all it is Hollywood. I guess I wouldn’t expect for Hollywood to turn out a film that is 100% theologically sound…especially if it is only two hours. But for a major motion film to gross 31.7 million dollars in its opening weekend that centers around the idea that the message of the Bible can change the world. I would say that it is a pretty good start.
Thanks Brian,
Perhaps it was the message that was important to Eli and Carnegie, but what was that message? Reading religious books make you spiritual? I suppose that before the scenario that we viewed on screen, there could’ve been a similar struggle by some other prophet to save the Torah and Koran from extinction. You commented, “But for a major motion film to gross 31.7 million dollars in its opening weekend that centers around the idea that the message of the Bible can change the world. I would say that it is a pretty good start.” May I suggest that as long as the Bible is not presented as the Logos, then this is no win for the Church?
Thanks for the quick response! I would say that the book was important to Carnegie and Eli for two different reasons. For Eli it was the message and for Carnegie it was “the words” to control the people. You’re right that there could have been other prophets for the other religious books, but they certainly didn’t make that clear in the film. Why wouldn’t they have had Carnegie after more than just the Bible if that was the case. He could have been collecting religious books and not just “the one.” If the filmmakers were trying to make a statement about religious literature why wouldn’t they have made “the book” one that was a new product of a new religion that came after “the flash.” I think that it could be argued from the film that the book was presented as the Word or Logos. But obviously, all of this is speculation and beside the point.
My point is that the Church was not the producer of the film so we cannot expect the film to present the Church’s message. Obviously, we can’t expect Hollywood to act as the Church either. The Church is responsible for communicating the message of the Gospel with theological precision. So, if Hollywood produces a film that communicates that the message of the Bible can change the world then I am grateful and I shouldn’t expect it to be communicated from the Church’s position. I would say that the win with this film is that it creates discussion such as this and hopefully more. I don’t think that the purpose of the film was to define the authorship or authority of the Scriptures and if it is taken to that end then I would suggest that it has been misinterpreted. But again, it creates good discussion that can be led back to God as the author of life and salvation.
Does that make sense?
Thanks Brian,
I think the producers were indeed trying to make the point that the Bible is significant, but it wasn’t clear that it is more significant than other religious artifacts. I speculate that Carnegie would have had equally sought after the Koran if there were only one remaining.
You wrote, “So, if Hollywood produces a film that communicates that the message of the Bible can change the world then I am grateful and I shouldn’t expect it to be communicated from the Church’s position.” However, a film that presents a world-changing Bible without a world-saving Christ works against the church’s message. In my context, the Bible-Belt, we see hundreds of Bible-carrying church attenders who profess a love for Scripture but have not had their hearts transformed by Jesus Christ.
Which clock is more deceptive? One that’s 5 minutes off, or one that’s 3 hours off? The Book of Eli is close to being on time, but still leaves the viewer dangerously late.
When Denzel Washington was interviewd on the Today Show last week about the movie, Matt Lauer asked him if The Book of Eli was a Christian movie. His answer was something to the effect, “I guess, but if he (Eli) had the Koran it could be called a Muslim movie or the Torah a Jewish movie.” Ultimately, The Book of Eli may be good entertainment, but it lacks the Gospel and treats the Bible as a source of wisdom not a source of life. Great insight in this blog post!!! Thank you!!!
Thanks for the continued discussion! To answer your question about the clock…I think the best answer is another question
. Is the purpose of the said clock to tell the correct time? If it is, then yes it would be deceptive, but if the clock in question is just an artistic piece on a wall whose purpose isn’t to display the correct time then the answer would be no. It all goes back to the intended purpose of clock. In this case, the film is not attempting to answer all of the questions about the nature of the Scriptures. The intended purpose of the film wasn’t to evangelize. Instead it is simply trying to be a piece of art that draws you into a story.
I am certainly not arguing that the Book of Eli is correct theologically, in fact, I agree that it falls short in never identifying the God behind the book. Our point of discussion is that I don’t think that either of us should expect the film to be absolutely correct. Now, if I found that the Village Church had produced the film I would have a much different position.
I believe that it is the purpose of the Church to share the Message of Jesus with the world and I believe that commission rests solely on her shoulders. I would hope that we never come to expect the entertainment industry (or any other) to fulfill that role. The day that we do, we must begin to question the nature and purpose of the Church.
I can identify with your context. I live in Bible-Belt too, about 15 minutes from the US’s largest evangelical University. It certainly makes things tough when the Christian sub-culture really isn’t all that “sub.”
One more question. How were you expecting the film to present the Bible?
Thanks for a great review and great discussion today!
Brian
You assume that the piece of art is neutral and harmless. Whether the producers had an agenda or not, the film contains a deistic message that either helps or hurts the Christian message. Now I’m not missing the aesthetics of the film (I thought it was brilliantly made), that’s where I typically start (see my How To Watch a Movie for a helpful matrix). As a film critic, I actually endorse the movie on several levels, but I always end with theological reflection.
As for what I expect from the film producers? Do I expect them to fulfill the role of the church? Not I all. But as a responsible cultural critic I’ll pick the film to pieces as I worship. I’ve said before “If a movie doesn’t lead to worship, you’ve watched it poorly (or watched a poor movie).”
“The Book of Eli” didn’t lead me to praise God that he would use a film about the Bible to endorse Christianity (though He could do that), but it lead me to pray for a contemporary wasteland that has a Bible on the shelf, but no Christ in the heart.
Enjoyed the dialogue Brian, thanks for your humble and helpful insight.
hello anthropologist,
i hope you will respond because i agree with brian on most of what he has said, but have some comments and questions he left out that i’d like to bring up for thought and discussion. this is going to be quickly typed as fast as my fingers will put down what my mind is thinking – so sorry in advance if it ends up jumbled or mistyped.
first off – i loved the movie, and i think that for a big budget hollywood mainstream film it did a better job at presenting faith than i’ve seen in any christian organization backed film. i’d like to ask you a few questions.
if eli is simply confusing ‘bibliolatry’ with christ-following and living by the spirit’s guidance then why does he pray? why does he tell of the ‘voice’ he heard that guides him? why does he explain to solara that he walks in faith? (the bible in his hands isn’t directing him west, but the spirit – the voice of God, and i believe his protection/accomplishment of his task (finishing the race) is pretty clearly attributed to God and God alone)
also, the movie clearly shows that this was the task given eli to finish. its not eli’s personal interest that he loves the words and wants people to hear them (which isnt bad anyway) but the task given him by God, plus he didnt even know what would happen when he reached his destination, only that God told him to do it and that he was walking by faith in God, not by sight. i feel you may be confusing the overall call of living out and preaching the gospel of the grace of God in Christ with fulfilling individual tasks in life that God calls us to. this just happens to be eli’s individual calling in his overall following of christ. i do believe he could have once or twice put this calling above helping others that was put in front of him (i assume you know what scenes i’m talking about) but isn’t that the sin nature of man? thats the story of the good samaritan – he passed up those on the road he may have helped – but he mans up to this by admitting he forgot to live out one thing the bible told him – to put others before himself, and at the end he repents of the things he did wrong along the way.
and…maybe dont think of the world today where we have access to the bible, but think of the setting of the movie. if there were one bible on earth and you had it (not to mention the voice of God had called you to it and laid the path for the task ahead of you) would you not defend it with your life? the reason he would have wanted it mass produced, and the reason he would want people to read it and learn it isn’t because of bibliolatry, and it isnt because the words are ‘classic’ or ‘useful’ but because “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” The WORD is where we come to know the story of our Father and the atonement of our sins by His giving up of his son. It is the bread of life. we do not live on bread alone but by the words of our God – that he gave us in the BIBLE. Sorry if i’m getting carried away, but i think this film was a brilliant Christ exalting movie – just because it doesnt say it in plain bold words doesnt mean we cant know what it means – much like a parable. its late and i’m tired. but i have to understand your criticisms better so i will continue.
i also realize another religious text could have been the book, but it WASN”T. it was clearly the bible, which eli called the ‘only book’ – which to me clearly negates a theory that the movie is just saying spirituality or religion could save humankind. and the symbolism at the end is that when the bible is put on the shelf it is the biggest book – the one in the center – the one that the camera focuses and zooms on. and sure, they could have mass produced the other texts, but the movie doesnt show that so i cant see that being part of the films message. we cant put the character of eli and base his ‘christianness’ on what the people with the printing press do. all we can know is that ‘a voice’ pointed eli to the bible and told him to bring it west to fulfill a purpose. eli read it and memorized it. in the end both the guy eli dictates to and solara have heard the bible in its entirety and it gets produced for the masses. i think that is a task God would orchestrate in the setting the movie presents in order for him to call people to his son. Maybe this is just what i wanted to see, but all in all i’d like to debate you on whether or not Christ is magnified in this film.
thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings,
billy
Thanks Billy,
I hope you’re not reading into my post that I, by any means, am devaluing the Bible, the inerrant Word of God. This wasn’t an attack on the Bible, and I’ll even concede that the producers presented the Bible as a life-changing book. But with no mention of the Life Changer, I can’t say (as you have) that Christ was magnified in the film.
I’ll refer you back to Rick’s comment, “When Denzel Washington was interviewd on the Today Show last week about the movie, Matt Lauer asked him if The Book of Eli was a Christian movie. His answer was something to the effect, “I guess, but if he (Eli) had the Koran it could be called a Muslim movie or the Torah a Jewish movie.”
You mention, “Just because it doesn’t say it [Christ] in plain bold words doesn’t mean we can’t.” You are absolutely right, and that is our job as Christian film critics—to take what the producers give us and worshipfully come to a Christian conclusion. You and I have the Christian foundation to do just that, but not all that watch the film will find Christ there, and that’s what’s concerning.
Great comments, thanks
Interesting and thougthful comments by all. Each raised valid points.
I agree with the Anthropologist that “…not all that watch the film will find Christ there” and I can understand why some Christians might be concerned by this. I certainly would not recommend this film to a Bible Study class as theological meat.
That said, we have to acknowledge that many people who see this movie feel compelled to discuss it afterward. By the comments left on some message boards most posters have little-to-no Bible literacy let alone an understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (even those who say they are Christians).
That represents an opportunity to share the truth of what the Bible *does* say and compare it to events/themes portrayed in the movie. Doesn’t really matter what Hollywood intended to say, what matters is whether the movie or ensuing dialog prompts anyone to read the Bible in search of answers. Just as real-life problems often open doors to share our faith in Jesus.
I believe the Bible is the Word of the living God Who has the power to transform lives…. whether a first time reader or one who reads scripture daily.
I have no illusion that Hollywood intended to increase Bible readership but as Christians we should appreciate the opportunity to lovingly feed any spiritual hunger that a movie like this may create by words as well as actions.
In that sense I agree with many of the comments here that the film has value because it prompts discussion surrounding faith, God, the Bible, and the difference between Religion and Relationship.
BTW, the post-apocalyptic setting and main character’s name of Eli also opens up some interesting discussion surrounding prophecy.
[...] but the ones in this post are not, then the ultimate goal is not met, and the Bible becomes just another book. Address: http://fm.thevillagechurch.net/blog/children/?p=372 « Reading Time – [...]