Presbyterian Church.

Huntly Press and District Gazette, Volume 3, Issue 6, 19 June 1914, Page 2

Presbyterian Church.

MOVING PICTURES. On Sunday night last the Rev Mr Richards preached a thoughtful and interesting sermon on the portrayal of Bibli cal subjects in the moving picture shows. The address was broad minded, and free from censoriousness, the moving picture meriting his approval as long as they typefied things terrestrial, hut meeting with strong criticism when an attempt was made to personify, and to present in the flesh the Son of God. The following extracts from a thoughtful address will prove of considerable interest to our readers. “ There was a book published some years ago entitled “The Sign of the cross,” by Wilson Barrett. It is a story Gf Christian persecution in Rome in the early days of Christianity, and is full of incident and interest. “ The Sign of the Cross,” was staged, and in Melbourne had a great run for several weeks. Ministers of all denominations were invited to witness the play. Many went and some approved. But there were a number who condemned the play, and said it was a pity it had ever been staged. Since then the picture films, known as the moving pictures, have, to a great extent, taken the place of the play, and people crowd the halls nightly to see the moving pictures, representing either tragedy or pleasure. In order to cater for the taste of Christians,g and church going people, it was deemed wise by a certain firm to stage the life and works of Jesus of Nazareth. We are given to understand that the pictures were really taken in Palestine, and that thousands of pounds were spent to secure the films, men and women being hired to act the parts, and to move as Christ and his followers were supposed to have moved. This may be true, but those of us who have read that profusely illustrated book entitled “From the Manger to the Cross,” by the late Dr Talmage, and who have recognised exactly the same pictures, may be excused if they have their doubts. It is a pity that the very name is plagiarised. The moving pictures were shown in Auckland during a part of the time ft hat the Exhibition was open, and for a short time drew crowded houses. So popular were the pictures that they were screened day and night, with only an interval of a quarer of an Pour. It has always been a difficult matter to represent Christ on the stage. Men can represent other men with some degree of accuracy, but when they have tried to represent Christ they failed. Jesus cannot be imitated as other men can oe. You cannot stage Christ ; He is above the stage and beyond it. This was found to be the case in the miracle plays of the Middle Ages. They could not successfully represent Christ. This truth is clearly shown in the moving pictures. The disciples, in many instances; are fairly well represented, and the distinct characteristics of each are kept throughout. But the representations of Christ fail majesty, in dignity of character? and altogether He becomes too human to be Christ. This is particularly noticeable in the picture repiesenting Christ in the act of driving out the money changers from the Temple. Christ is represented in am attitude undignified, gesticulating and full of fury, slashing at the people on the right hand and on the left. The scene is pitiful, and is not a correct representation of Jesus of Nazareth. Part of the fault of such misrepresentations may be in the tact that men who are not Christians have been engaged to act the Christ. No true Christian would sell himself to do such a thing, for he has too high a veneration for Christ to pesonify Him for the stage. But, the unfortunate thing is, that there are always men who lack principle, and who are ready to personify anybody or anything. The, pictures, but for this blemish, have many good points. Upon the whole, they are clean and healthy, and, when compared with much that is screened, of a v<?ry high order. The, Church, to be consistent, can never condemn great work.-> of art, for the masterpieces to be seep in our great art galleries have been born out of the matchless stories of the Bible. Nor would we like to say that in every instance the artists who received inspiration to produce such wonderful representations were believers in those sacred records. With what transcendent beauty does Raphael’s “ Transfiguration ” stand out before the spectator, awe-inspiring and grand in the highest degree, a matchless composition. Consider, too, Reuben’s “Descent from the Cross, ” a masterpiece of work, evoking universal admiration for the incomparable excellence of its grouping. Or who can contemplate “ The Dead Christ, ” a work by Annibale Caracci, without being overpowered by its solemn radiance and divine glory? These, and hundreds more, have been fostered by the Christian Church. “To one who has studied the i life of Christ the omissions in the picture “ From the Manger j to the Cross,” were many. In | fact there were incidents in the j life of Christ impossible to por- j tray. No one could give the j miracle scenes, — the feeding of j the multitudes, the walking upon j the sea, the resurrection of l

Lazarus, the Gethsamane agony Those who contemplated screening the life of Christ must have realised the impossibility of doing justice to he subject. It was out of human reach, and beyond human power. Nevertheless, it is wise to put the best before the minds of the people. Those who witnessed the moving pictures representing as much as was possible of the life work of Jesus of Nazareth, were better for what they had seen. The moving pictures are destined to do good or evil, and the results will depend upon the tone and character of the pictures shown. It should be our aim to put the best, and only the best, before our fellowmen, and especially so before our young people.