Alan Ritchson, who plays Jack Reacher in Prime Video’s Reacher series, reacted to Christian criticism regarding his glorification of fornication through his characters that he plays on screen.Fandom Pulse is a reader-supported publication.
"He reacted saying, 'I'm sorry—I doubt that's going to be part of the conversation when I'm standing at the pearly gates!'"
There won't be a conversation. There will be judgment, and it will apply to all your actions, even when you're playing make-believe with another human being subject to those actions. This guy's going to have a bad time of it in the hereafter if this is his attitude.
Sorry, but I am going to have to push back on this take. I love your work in pop culture that you have done for years John, but this pedantic view of art is going to kill your credibility on critical analysis of storytelling.
The puritanical approach to culture has killed the ability of the church to reach others and makes their attempts at storytelling come off as insincere, un-creative and propagandistic in execution.
How is this actor glorifying sin? Is he only allowed Christian contemporary films that have absolutely no intimacy, violence or other forms of sin? Are we not allowed to watch anything with sinful behavior? Are gentiles the only ones allowed to act in sinful roles and it makes it okay now? What’s the cut off point for a story with flawed characters where it becomes a story that isn’t Christian anymore?
These questions come to mind and more and this only shows that you are moralizing like Pharisees and Saducees and finger wagging at audiences like the wokies do. I think you guys need a moment of introspection that dictating what others watch, create and do for entertainment limits the ability of true creativity and expression. Just because think you are right doesn’t mean that you don’t have a blind eye in this argument and puts into question whether you even care for all these pop culture IPs that you comment on.
It comes off as this is a battlefield for your ideology/politics/religious denomination and not that you have a personal stake in storytelling and fandom. This is why Christian contemporary fell flat on its face because it was more worried about offending people and church politics than telling a story that can genuinely uplift people.
He's glorifying sin because it's the hero of the story engaging it. That's done on purpose to get the audience to accept it as normal. If the hero does, it's a good thing especially when there is nothing in the show making it clear it's evil. Furthermore, it's in both Season 1 and Season 2 as something to be emulated.
Second, nowhere in this article did I claim that evil cannot be depicted. In fact, I routinely cite Inter Mirifica and Pope Paul VI who states, "Finally, the narration, description or portrayal of moral evil, even through the media of social communication, can indeed serve to bring about a deeper knowledge and study of humanity and, with the aid of appropriately heightened dramatic effects, can reveal and glorify the grand dimensions of truth and goodness. Nevertheless, such presentations ought always to be subject to moral restraint, lest they work to the harm rather than the benefit of souls, particularly when there is question of treating matters which deserve reverent handling or which, given the baneful effect of original sin in men, could quite readily arouse base desires in them."
Thirdly, describing the Catholic Church and its teaching as "pedantic" "puritanical" "and in the vein of the Pharisees and Sadducees is absurd on its face.
Finally, total freedom is the lie of the devil that leads to enslavement. True freedom is following the divine law of Jesus Christ.
It’s based on a book series by Lee Child. Should Catholic actors not take roles in secular movies? Reacher is ambiguous but he stands up for people who are being victimized. He’s a former MP not an angel or a saint
Neal McDonough refused to do kissing scenes with women other than his wife. He's also portrayed the devil in a recent movie.
There's a fine line where if the fornication was not being glorified and was shown as the grave evil that it is, it could be used to promote the common good as Pope Paul VI explains in Inter Mirifica.
Catholic actors should not be showing fornication in a good light. It is the sin of scandal among others.
I'll think on your words and I appreciate the engagement. One rule of thumb I try to use when discerning whether something is glorifying a destructive behavior, is this: is the behavior depicted in such a way as to be gratuitous? Often a dead giveaway of whether something is depicted with moral restraint versus to quietly just promote something is when a given behavior (usually such as sex or violence) is shown in such a way that does nothing to drive the story or develop the characters in any meaningful way.
I couldn't agree more. Your thoughts here show a humility of heart and that you care about people, and as a Christian I share your approach. As a writer, I work in all kinds of genres, including some inspirational/Christian fiction, and I think we have to portray human beings authentically. Look, I don't think the goal in any way, shape, or form should be to 'glorify' sin and evil. But in many cases when a finger-wagging Christian is saying that what they *really* mean is, in a fictional story you admitted that sin exists or you dared to portray a protagonist in the story acting in a sinful way.
Showing reality, showing authentic human failings, is not by itself 'glorifying' anything. I think it truly hurts the Christian cause when we take such a brittle view of creative work and storytelling. It hurts the Christian ability to reach others and share God's word too.
Characters in the vein of King David. Was he immoral? At times, absolutely. Yet he is one of the heroes in the Bible too and was ultimately redeemed. We are all flawed human beings who fall short of God.
That arrogant prick is speaking on behalf of God. I really doubt his perverted interpretation of Christianity is his genuine belief. More likely he's trying to subvert and demoralise. Either that, or his bipolar disorder is acting up.
It's impossible to have only moral people in one's stories. They don't exist, at least until Christ comes again. The best one can hope for are those who strive for virtue.
It's difficult to write immoral people who struggle with error and wickedness in themselves, repenting, backsliding, struggling more, and so on without a Christian framework.
One ends in excusing the wrongness, or worse, pretending it's a good. Or losing the characters to world of nihilism.
"Is my work helping to point to what is virtuous and beautiful, or at least not actively helping to damn others,?" ought to be asked and answered.
The question of this actor's Christianity boils down to whether he believes in the resurrection, and the redemption. If he does, pray that he isn't lying to himself about the Hollywood team making his show.
I can see where Ritchson is coming from. Reacher is a morally ambiguous character who mostly does the right thing and stands up for the underdog. However, season two of Reacher was so disappointing even though he played the character well. Physically, he just LOOKS like Reacher, much more than the diminutive Tom Cruise did in the movies.
Ritchson is right. Stories involve flawed heroes, and even more flawed villains.
There's a basic logic failure in the criticism - portrayal != endorsement.
How does an actor play the role of King David (you know, the adulterer.)
Can't do the Passion without someone being Herod, or Pilate, or Judas - in fact, there was only one cast member who could portray a character who didn't sin - Jim Caviezel.
Kevin Sorbo played a militant atheist college professor who told his students God is dead.
In the movie "The Hiding Space, someone had to play the Nazis.
"He reacted saying, 'I'm sorry—I doubt that's going to be part of the conversation when I'm standing at the pearly gates!'"
There won't be a conversation. There will be judgment, and it will apply to all your actions, even when you're playing make-believe with another human being subject to those actions. This guy's going to have a bad time of it in the hereafter if this is his attitude.
Sorry, but I am going to have to push back on this take. I love your work in pop culture that you have done for years John, but this pedantic view of art is going to kill your credibility on critical analysis of storytelling.
The puritanical approach to culture has killed the ability of the church to reach others and makes their attempts at storytelling come off as insincere, un-creative and propagandistic in execution.
How is this actor glorifying sin? Is he only allowed Christian contemporary films that have absolutely no intimacy, violence or other forms of sin? Are we not allowed to watch anything with sinful behavior? Are gentiles the only ones allowed to act in sinful roles and it makes it okay now? What’s the cut off point for a story with flawed characters where it becomes a story that isn’t Christian anymore?
These questions come to mind and more and this only shows that you are moralizing like Pharisees and Saducees and finger wagging at audiences like the wokies do. I think you guys need a moment of introspection that dictating what others watch, create and do for entertainment limits the ability of true creativity and expression. Just because think you are right doesn’t mean that you don’t have a blind eye in this argument and puts into question whether you even care for all these pop culture IPs that you comment on.
It comes off as this is a battlefield for your ideology/politics/religious denomination and not that you have a personal stake in storytelling and fandom. This is why Christian contemporary fell flat on its face because it was more worried about offending people and church politics than telling a story that can genuinely uplift people.
He's glorifying sin because it's the hero of the story engaging it. That's done on purpose to get the audience to accept it as normal. If the hero does, it's a good thing especially when there is nothing in the show making it clear it's evil. Furthermore, it's in both Season 1 and Season 2 as something to be emulated.
Second, nowhere in this article did I claim that evil cannot be depicted. In fact, I routinely cite Inter Mirifica and Pope Paul VI who states, "Finally, the narration, description or portrayal of moral evil, even through the media of social communication, can indeed serve to bring about a deeper knowledge and study of humanity and, with the aid of appropriately heightened dramatic effects, can reveal and glorify the grand dimensions of truth and goodness. Nevertheless, such presentations ought always to be subject to moral restraint, lest they work to the harm rather than the benefit of souls, particularly when there is question of treating matters which deserve reverent handling or which, given the baneful effect of original sin in men, could quite readily arouse base desires in them."
Thirdly, describing the Catholic Church and its teaching as "pedantic" "puritanical" "and in the vein of the Pharisees and Sadducees is absurd on its face.
Finally, total freedom is the lie of the devil that leads to enslavement. True freedom is following the divine law of Jesus Christ.
It’s based on a book series by Lee Child. Should Catholic actors not take roles in secular movies? Reacher is ambiguous but he stands up for people who are being victimized. He’s a former MP not an angel or a saint
Neal McDonough refused to do kissing scenes with women other than his wife. He's also portrayed the devil in a recent movie.
There's a fine line where if the fornication was not being glorified and was shown as the grave evil that it is, it could be used to promote the common good as Pope Paul VI explains in Inter Mirifica.
Catholic actors should not be showing fornication in a good light. It is the sin of scandal among others.
I'll think on your words and I appreciate the engagement. One rule of thumb I try to use when discerning whether something is glorifying a destructive behavior, is this: is the behavior depicted in such a way as to be gratuitous? Often a dead giveaway of whether something is depicted with moral restraint versus to quietly just promote something is when a given behavior (usually such as sex or violence) is shown in such a way that does nothing to drive the story or develop the characters in any meaningful way.
Nobody asked you.
I couldn't agree more. Your thoughts here show a humility of heart and that you care about people, and as a Christian I share your approach. As a writer, I work in all kinds of genres, including some inspirational/Christian fiction, and I think we have to portray human beings authentically. Look, I don't think the goal in any way, shape, or form should be to 'glorify' sin and evil. But in many cases when a finger-wagging Christian is saying that what they *really* mean is, in a fictional story you admitted that sin exists or you dared to portray a protagonist in the story acting in a sinful way.
Showing reality, showing authentic human failings, is not by itself 'glorifying' anything. I think it truly hurts the Christian cause when we take such a brittle view of creative work and storytelling. It hurts the Christian ability to reach others and share God's word too.
Jon, so you try to have immoral protagonists in your books?
Characters in the vein of King David. Was he immoral? At times, absolutely. Yet he is one of the heroes in the Bible too and was ultimately redeemed. We are all flawed human beings who fall short of God.
That arrogant prick is speaking on behalf of God. I really doubt his perverted interpretation of Christianity is his genuine belief. More likely he's trying to subvert and demoralise. Either that, or his bipolar disorder is acting up.
Take a break from commenting. Take a shower and try again later.
Aww, somebody's triggered.
There is no issue.
It's impossible to have only moral people in one's stories. They don't exist, at least until Christ comes again. The best one can hope for are those who strive for virtue.
It's difficult to write immoral people who struggle with error and wickedness in themselves, repenting, backsliding, struggling more, and so on without a Christian framework.
One ends in excusing the wrongness, or worse, pretending it's a good. Or losing the characters to world of nihilism.
"Is my work helping to point to what is virtuous and beautiful, or at least not actively helping to damn others,?" ought to be asked and answered.
The question of this actor's Christianity boils down to whether he believes in the resurrection, and the redemption. If he does, pray that he isn't lying to himself about the Hollywood team making his show.
I can see where Ritchson is coming from. Reacher is a morally ambiguous character who mostly does the right thing and stands up for the underdog. However, season two of Reacher was so disappointing even though he played the character well. Physically, he just LOOKS like Reacher, much more than the diminutive Tom Cruise did in the movies.
Ritchson is right. Stories involve flawed heroes, and even more flawed villains.
There's a basic logic failure in the criticism - portrayal != endorsement.
How does an actor play the role of King David (you know, the adulterer.)
Can't do the Passion without someone being Herod, or Pilate, or Judas - in fact, there was only one cast member who could portray a character who didn't sin - Jim Caviezel.
Kevin Sorbo played a militant atheist college professor who told his students God is dead.
In the movie "The Hiding Space, someone had to play the Nazis.
The dude is a Trump hater, therefore I've never watched this show!!! Will boycott all actors with TDS!!