The article published by Ecran Large about the film David, distributed by Saje, follows a logic that is now familiar. Under the guise of analysis, he uses a vocabulary heavy with innuendo, evoking a “disturbing glissement†and one “evangelization of the massesâ€. This lexical choice is not neutral. He constructs a story, that of a Christian cinema that has become suspect. This process is not new. He recalls, almost word for word, the critics who had targeted the film Sacré CÅ“urco-directed by Sabrina and Steven Gunnell. Already at the time, the work was not only discussed on an artistic level, but presented as an ideological object to be monitored. What is striking in these positions is their selective character. Engaged cinema exists in many forms, political, social, militant. It is often hailed as a contribution to the public debate. But when it comes to a film inspired by the Christian faith and the Old Testament, the tone changes, and with it the accusation of proselytism.
Why this difference in treatment?
Because Christianity, when it is expressed openly, disturbs a certain dominant vision, which tolerates religion as long as it remains confined to the private sphere, but becomes concerned as soon as it appears in the cultural space. Qualify a film as David of “danger†is not trivial. This word reveals a deep concern. Not that of a real manipulation of the public, but that of seeing the emergence of an alternative discourse, capable of reaching a large audience. Because the potential success of this type of film changes the situation. It shows that there is an expectation, a desire for meaning, that dominant cinema does not satisfy.
And that is exactly what hides those who are restless.
In reality, the danger is not on the side of those who produce these works. It is on the side of those who fear their dissemination.
Lire l’article
For several years, a certain conception of secularism has been transformed. From a principle of balance, it has become, in certain discourses, an instrument of exclusion. It is no longer content with guaranteeing freedom of conscience, it tends to disqualify all visible religious expression. But this ideological construction today shows its limits. It comes up against a simple reality: Catholics exist, and they create, they write, they film, they tell stories…and they meet an audience.
What emerges behind these criticisms is a more fundamental fear. That of seeing minds enlightened, of seeing spectators rediscover stories carrying meaning, truth, transcendence.
Because an animated film like David doesn’t just entertain children. It offers a reading of the world, an anthropology, a hope. And this, in a cultural landscape often marked by relativism, already constitutes a form of rupture. If freedom of expression has any meaning, it cannot be variable geometry. It cannot fully apply to certain discourses, and be immediately suspected when it concerns Christianity through the Old or New Testament.
Critical debate is legitimate. Systematic disqualification is not. By dint of denouncing an alleged danger, some end up revealing their own: that of no longer being able to impose a single ideological framework.
The public is not fooled. He knows how to sort things out. He does not need to be protected from faith-inspired narratives. Perhaps it is time to trust him and accept that Christian cinema, far from being a threat, can simply be what it is: a voice among others, but a free voice that enlightens. Because when the light appears, it is never the one that is dangerous. What is, on the other hand, is the desire to extinguish it.
