What do you think?
Film as Religion: Myths, Morals, and Rituals
Choice Outstanding Academic Title 2003 Film as Religion argues that popular films perform a religious function in our culture. Like more formal religious institutions, films can provide us with ways to view the world and values to confront it. Lyden contends that approaches which interpret films only ideologically or theologically miss the mark in understanding their appeal to viewers. He develops an alternative method which shows how films can be understood as representing a 'religious' worldview in their own right. Lyden surveys the state of the study of religion and film, offering an overview of previous methods before presenting his own. Rather than seeking to uncover hidden meanings in film detectable only to scholars, Lyden emphasizes how film functions for its audiences the beliefs and values it conveys, and its ritual power to provide emotional catharsis. He includes a number of brief cases studies in which he applies this method to the study of film genres including westerns and action movies, children's films, and romantic comedies and individual films from The Godfather to E.T, showing how films can function religiously.
300 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2003
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
December 24, 2021
This was assigned reading for an online class. It was good; I think if I had come across it and chosen to read it on my own it would have held my attention throughout most of the book. The first four chapters sets up his premise about how films can be interpreted from a religious point of view or seeing religious values/perspectives in movies. His biggest "focus" (main point) of the book has to do with the differences between what he calls "the model for reality" and "the model of reality." In the rest of the book he discusses the various genres of films; he also lumps some genres together and explains why he does this. Throughout the section on genres, he uses his two models regarding reality to interpret films.
The difference between the two models is reflective of the difference(s) between a worldview and an ethos (i.e. - the way the world is believed to be and the way the it is believed the world ought to be). The "models of reality" describes the way we think the world really is. The "models for reality" describe how we would like it to be. In conjunction, he postulates that religions provide both relief and ethical values (22). He goes on to talk about how these symbolic systems establish both moods and motivation in us (motivations provide impetus for action whereas moods often prove to be an impediment to our taking action), how these moods and motivations are based in conceptions of a general order of existence (and how religious symbols allow a person to deal with the encroachment of chaos on our lives while offering a sense that life is meaningful and orderly in spite of the challenge of chaos). He goes on to say that religion clothes these conceptions with an aura of factuality. and that this factuality makes the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic (22-24).
He does present some interesting perspectives and thoughts about how films can be interpreted from a religious point-of-view. His chapters on genres are interesting, for the most part. Part of what makes them interesting is how he blends his own opinions with quotes from other scholars and critics while adding his own interpretation of these other opinions. At the same time, I feel like he makes too much of his own interpretations of what a movie is saying versus "what it is really saying." I do not remember if he talks about "the circuit of culture" or not, but the "circuit of culture" is another way of interpreting movies but from the perspective of the viewer without taking into consideration what the intentions were of the screenwriter, the director, or the producer were when making the movie. Regardless, on the one hand, the author comes across as proposing that each person's interpretation of a movie is more valid than the story actually being told onscreen AND that it does not matter how many different interpretations of a movie there can be; each interpretation is equally important and valid. However, he does not seem to fully believe in this proposed equality of the validity of interpretations as he makes various disparaging remarks about the opinions and viewpoints of those with whom he disagrees (such as conservative Christians who are not fond of the Harry Potter books or films, or how he comes across as championing certain "war films" that are more pacifistic than patriotic in nature).
I did find it interesting how he lumped some films together in terms of genres. For example, he lumps western films, action films, and superhero films together in one chapter for discussion. This stems from how, in his opinion, westerns translated into "action films" and from "action films" into superhero films because of numerous similarities between the three genres. In general, each film requires the hero to engage in some kind of violence to save a town (or the earth) and becomes a scapegoat of sorts because of the amount of violence used to save civilization. The hero might save some part of civilization but cannot be a part of said society because of the violent measures used to protect the innocent, those who need protecting. Westerns became urban action movies as more people moved from a rural environment into more densely populated urban areas. Just as in the western film, the urban action film tends to require the hero to go after the villain or villains alone; the hero tends to have to sacrifice quite a bit to save the city. Eventually, the urban hero became an "anti-hero" after Die Hard and this "anti-hero" mentality seems to have "taken over" how heroes are portrayed. He sees superhero films as being the next step in the evolution of the western because of how the hero still tends to be excluded from normal life due to the sacrifices he or she must make for the community that prevents him or her from living a "normal life." It was an interesting chapter.
He lumps "fantasy" films in with children's films but still focuses mainly on fantasy films aimed towards children as opposed to "sword and sorcery" epics/movies. Most of this chapter talks about Disney being the powerhouse that it is when it comes to "children's films" but how there are still some upstart companies trying to make waves and get a piece of that pie geared towards children and young people. The success of films that do not necessarily follow Disney's "model" has helped keep these competitors afloat.
The chapter on science fiction was fun to read. He talks briefly about how hard it can be at times to define "science fiction" and what constitutes "science fiction." The genre of "science fiction" is further broken down into sub-sections such as "Fears of Death and Dystopia," "Aliens, Nice and Otherwise," "Robots and Androids," "The Terminator - the Future is Not Set," "Twenty-First Century Robot Films," and "The Not-So-Diverse Future." Overall, it was probably my favorite chapter in the book because of how much I love science fiction.
One thing about the chapter on horror - it was interesting how he discussed how difficult it could be to label a film as a straight-up "horror film" because of how often aspects of horror can be interlaced in other films, other genres of films (especially science fiction). In general, though, the author states that "non horror films may frighten the audience to tell their stories, but horror films tell stories to frighten the audience. In the former, fear is a side effect; in the latter, it is the object of the exercise" (237). So that was an interesting point to make about horror films (and which does make perfect sense).
Overall, it was a good book. It was an interesting book overall and I could see myself having picked it up to read if I saw it on a library shelf. While I do not fully agree with everything he says in the book, I felt he was fairly reasonable, overall, and did a decent job of explaining the different genres and how he interpreted them (while still taking what he wrote with a grain of salt). It was a good book, and I am glad that I took the online course that used this book as the class's "textbook."
The difference between the two models is reflective of the difference(s) between a worldview and an ethos (i.e. - the way the world is believed to be and the way the it is believed the world ought to be). The "models of reality" describes the way we think the world really is. The "models for reality" describe how we would like it to be. In conjunction, he postulates that religions provide both relief and ethical values (22). He goes on to talk about how these symbolic systems establish both moods and motivation in us (motivations provide impetus for action whereas moods often prove to be an impediment to our taking action), how these moods and motivations are based in conceptions of a general order of existence (and how religious symbols allow a person to deal with the encroachment of chaos on our lives while offering a sense that life is meaningful and orderly in spite of the challenge of chaos). He goes on to say that religion clothes these conceptions with an aura of factuality. and that this factuality makes the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic (22-24).
He does present some interesting perspectives and thoughts about how films can be interpreted from a religious point-of-view. His chapters on genres are interesting, for the most part. Part of what makes them interesting is how he blends his own opinions with quotes from other scholars and critics while adding his own interpretation of these other opinions. At the same time, I feel like he makes too much of his own interpretations of what a movie is saying versus "what it is really saying." I do not remember if he talks about "the circuit of culture" or not, but the "circuit of culture" is another way of interpreting movies but from the perspective of the viewer without taking into consideration what the intentions were of the screenwriter, the director, or the producer were when making the movie. Regardless, on the one hand, the author comes across as proposing that each person's interpretation of a movie is more valid than the story actually being told onscreen AND that it does not matter how many different interpretations of a movie there can be; each interpretation is equally important and valid. However, he does not seem to fully believe in this proposed equality of the validity of interpretations as he makes various disparaging remarks about the opinions and viewpoints of those with whom he disagrees (such as conservative Christians who are not fond of the Harry Potter books or films, or how he comes across as championing certain "war films" that are more pacifistic than patriotic in nature).
I did find it interesting how he lumped some films together in terms of genres. For example, he lumps western films, action films, and superhero films together in one chapter for discussion. This stems from how, in his opinion, westerns translated into "action films" and from "action films" into superhero films because of numerous similarities between the three genres. In general, each film requires the hero to engage in some kind of violence to save a town (or the earth) and becomes a scapegoat of sorts because of the amount of violence used to save civilization. The hero might save some part of civilization but cannot be a part of said society because of the violent measures used to protect the innocent, those who need protecting. Westerns became urban action movies as more people moved from a rural environment into more densely populated urban areas. Just as in the western film, the urban action film tends to require the hero to go after the villain or villains alone; the hero tends to have to sacrifice quite a bit to save the city. Eventually, the urban hero became an "anti-hero" after Die Hard and this "anti-hero" mentality seems to have "taken over" how heroes are portrayed. He sees superhero films as being the next step in the evolution of the western because of how the hero still tends to be excluded from normal life due to the sacrifices he or she must make for the community that prevents him or her from living a "normal life." It was an interesting chapter.
He lumps "fantasy" films in with children's films but still focuses mainly on fantasy films aimed towards children as opposed to "sword and sorcery" epics/movies. Most of this chapter talks about Disney being the powerhouse that it is when it comes to "children's films" but how there are still some upstart companies trying to make waves and get a piece of that pie geared towards children and young people. The success of films that do not necessarily follow Disney's "model" has helped keep these competitors afloat.
The chapter on science fiction was fun to read. He talks briefly about how hard it can be at times to define "science fiction" and what constitutes "science fiction." The genre of "science fiction" is further broken down into sub-sections such as "Fears of Death and Dystopia," "Aliens, Nice and Otherwise," "Robots and Androids," "The Terminator - the Future is Not Set," "Twenty-First Century Robot Films," and "The Not-So-Diverse Future." Overall, it was probably my favorite chapter in the book because of how much I love science fiction.
One thing about the chapter on horror - it was interesting how he discussed how difficult it could be to label a film as a straight-up "horror film" because of how often aspects of horror can be interlaced in other films, other genres of films (especially science fiction). In general, though, the author states that "non horror films may frighten the audience to tell their stories, but horror films tell stories to frighten the audience. In the former, fear is a side effect; in the latter, it is the object of the exercise" (237). So that was an interesting point to make about horror films (and which does make perfect sense).
Overall, it was a good book. It was an interesting book overall and I could see myself having picked it up to read if I saw it on a library shelf. While I do not fully agree with everything he says in the book, I felt he was fairly reasonable, overall, and did a decent job of explaining the different genres and how he interpreted them (while still taking what he wrote with a grain of salt). It was a good book, and I am glad that I took the online course that used this book as the class's "textbook."
May 21, 2022
This is my second time reading this book, but I did not reread all of it as only parts of this book were used for another class I took. It was still an interesting book to read; I think the segments and chapters we did read helped give better illumination to the topics and movies we were discussing in class. This time around, we read bits of chapter 3 and all of chapters 5 (about Westerns, Action Films, and Superhero films to prep us for The Dark Knight), 6 (about Gangsters and "Gangster Ethics" to prep us for The Godfather), and 12 (about Wars, "Just Wars," and pacifism to prep us for American Sniper and I assume for Born on the Fourth of July).
This time around, I felt like gangs and "the Family" were given more leeway or leniency in terms of their ethics and behavior whereas I still feel like the author's pacifism really shines through and slants the chapter on the violence shown in "War Films" (or films about war or warfare or specific battles in a war). It is interesting; it felt like the violence in gangster films was "more acceptable" and "justified" in the author's opinion whereas the violence in war films was not justifiable or acceptable.
In any case, it was still an interesting book to reread; the author does make several valid points in throughout the chapters we read in relation to the movies we watched. I am glad I took the class, and I could see myself rereading this book in the relative near future at some time.
This time around, I felt like gangs and "the Family" were given more leeway or leniency in terms of their ethics and behavior whereas I still feel like the author's pacifism really shines through and slants the chapter on the violence shown in "War Films" (or films about war or warfare or specific battles in a war). It is interesting; it felt like the violence in gangster films was "more acceptable" and "justified" in the author's opinion whereas the violence in war films was not justifiable or acceptable.
In any case, it was still an interesting book to reread; the author does make several valid points in throughout the chapters we read in relation to the movies we watched. I am glad I took the class, and I could see myself rereading this book in the relative near future at some time.
October 1, 2023
I was honestly a bit surprised that this book turned out to be what it was, given its reputation in the circles of religion and film and its consistent use as a textbook in religion and film courses. The first part of this book is excellent - Lyden does an incredible job walking through some often dense religious studies work on definitions of religion and myth, and then does a masterful job connecting those ideas to the world of film and how films function in culture. The second part of the book covers different film genres and, I thought, would talk explicitly about religious themes and ideas within those genres. Some of that is covered. And by some I mean, really, very little. Mostly these chapters just function as brief histories of these varied genres, and what connections there are to their religious themes or tendencies is mostly left unexplored. The writing is great and the brief genre histories are, in a lot of ways, quite good. But they aren't really (to my reading) exactly what the book seems to present itself as offering, and so I came away a bit disappointed with the overall offering.
November 14, 2023
I had to read this for class, and this is a perfect example of non-inclusive and heteronormative literature. I would give it a zero if I could.
August 17, 2025
A must-read for Christian cinephiles
April 20, 2012
I enjoy this book. Author wanders away, at times, from his desire to portray film as religion, and into the old "how religion is portrayed/seen in film", and I wish he'd done more with the ritual of film going. He also sticks quite close to Geertz's definition of religion, which, while popular, is not without problems (cf. Asad). However, the genre myth sections are excellent reading, and, overall, I enjoy this book. Very useful for classes on religion and film; religion and pop culture.
April 25, 2007
The title intrigued me. He spends the early chapters doing an intense summary and review of filmography's thought on religion. He really established a good argument for the similar function of film and religion in soceity. His later section breaks down the different genres of film and analyzes their contribution to the idea of "religion"
September 2, 2015
His ideas: film as religion and film as interreligious dialogue are important for the research area religion and media. I use this book in my religious studies seminar and it is an important source for controversial discussions.
May 5, 2012
The author described many historical events new to this reader. And I found his thesis to be quite convincing.
April 1, 2017
This is an intriguing book in many ways. Lyden suggests, as the title states, that movies can be religion. I thought perhaps it would be a more anthropological treatment, but it lays good groundwork for understanding how religion and film share similar ideas and meet similar needs. The "methods" section was a bit denser than the remainder of the book, but the comparison with movies and myths was good.
My favorite part of the book, however, was part 2. This is where Lyden looks at various film genres and what they share with religion. I especially appreciated that he included horror—too often this genre is simply dismissed as juvenile and as not having much to contribute. His connection of horror with thrillers also validated, in some way, this understudied form of popular media.
As with most books, I discussed this one on my blog as well: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World, for those interested.
My favorite part of the book, however, was part 2. This is where Lyden looks at various film genres and what they share with religion. I especially appreciated that he included horror—too often this genre is simply dismissed as juvenile and as not having much to contribute. His connection of horror with thrillers also validated, in some way, this understudied form of popular media.
As with most books, I discussed this one on my blog as well: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World, for those interested.
April 12, 2017
While "Film as Religion" made me think quite a bit and I can certain appreciate Lyden's attempt to broaden the scope of theology by introducing a new way of thinking about the relationship between religion, the secular, and modern media...I found his methods quite problematic and I had a lot of trouble with this book as a piece of religious studies scholarship.
Lyden's work is replete with generalizations that have no grounds in ethnographic study or even religious studies theory. Though Lyden argues that “film” as a general category operates as a “religion,” he is clearly focused narrowly on Hollywood, English-language blockbusters. This would be fine if he identified his project as such, but instead he seems to suggest that his analysis can be extrapolated to the study of religion as a whole.
Lyden’s discussion of Interreligious Dialogue and Film, moreover, focuses solely on the relationship between film and Christianity, but yet claims that this 100 year relationship “shows the same stages found in the history of the interaction between religions” (a massive generalization of a very long and complex history…Which religions? Where? What periods? Where is the context for this argument?) Furthermore, despite his constant calls for scholars to conduct ethnographic research and include studies of audience reception in their analyses, "Film as Religion" is based largely on speculation and generalizations drawn from his own analyses (without including any self-reflexivity about his positionality or his potential biases).
His own reliance on Geertz's definition of religion, moreover, does not include any consideration of scholarly critiques of this definition (most notably by Talal Asad), offering little reflexivity with regards to the theories and methods he employs in his study.
So while this work is certainly interesting and raises a lot of important questions about the relationship between the religious and the secular, religion and art, and religion as media...as a piece of academic scholarship it seems to be lacking and should really be read in conversation with the work of other religious studies scholars.
Lyden's work is replete with generalizations that have no grounds in ethnographic study or even religious studies theory. Though Lyden argues that “film” as a general category operates as a “religion,” he is clearly focused narrowly on Hollywood, English-language blockbusters. This would be fine if he identified his project as such, but instead he seems to suggest that his analysis can be extrapolated to the study of religion as a whole.
Lyden’s discussion of Interreligious Dialogue and Film, moreover, focuses solely on the relationship between film and Christianity, but yet claims that this 100 year relationship “shows the same stages found in the history of the interaction between religions” (a massive generalization of a very long and complex history…Which religions? Where? What periods? Where is the context for this argument?) Furthermore, despite his constant calls for scholars to conduct ethnographic research and include studies of audience reception in their analyses, "Film as Religion" is based largely on speculation and generalizations drawn from his own analyses (without including any self-reflexivity about his positionality or his potential biases).
His own reliance on Geertz's definition of religion, moreover, does not include any consideration of scholarly critiques of this definition (most notably by Talal Asad), offering little reflexivity with regards to the theories and methods he employs in his study.
So while this work is certainly interesting and raises a lot of important questions about the relationship between the religious and the secular, religion and art, and religion as media...as a piece of academic scholarship it seems to be lacking and should really be read in conversation with the work of other religious studies scholars.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews