Change Your Image
smith-19012
Reviews
Vikings (2013)
The "History Channel" ought to be ashamed
I got 2.5 seasons into this show. The first was pretty good in the sense that they really did paint a powerful picture (as many other reviewers point out, not accurate, but powerful) of this old warrior culture. Things got even more interesting when they invaded England and made it a clash of ancient civilizations, both of which seemed to be treated with a decent degree of nuance and respect. I looked forward to more.
Season 2 went downhill, and 5 episodes into season 3 I'm officially out, wishing I'd wasted less time that could have been spent on a better show, or a more productive pursuit altogether.
Many reviewers, better-informed on some matters than me, point out glaring inaccuracies about the Vikings. For my part, I would like to point out the egregious Christian-bashing that starts in season 2 and only goes downhill from there. It's stereotypical at this point, but I expected better from a show that both started strong and is aired by the "History Channel."
The first offense occurs with a scene of the bishop and a crowd of Christians crucifying an apostate. Dressed up in a loin cloth, crown of thorns, crowd yelling "Crucify him!" and the whole nine. This didn't happen. There's no record of of Christians having ever engaged in crucifixions, which should be obvious because it wouldn't make any sense. Christians did (and do) venerate the cross, and Christ's crucifixion. Why would they execute an apostate, someone who has rejected Christ, in the same manner as Christ himself? It's one thing to dispense with historical accuracy, another to reject even basic logic.
The last straw for me was in the third season, when the Christians massacre women and children in a Viking village and then burn a cross afterward (KKK anyone?), kneel to it, and start praying the "Our Father." Again, this didn't happen (there's no history of burning crosses until the 19th century), and wouldn't have happened, because why would Christians burn the cross they venerate? This doesn't even pass the smell test.
For good measure, of course, we have all kinds of scenes of Christians engaged in all manner of savagery and adultery. Now, I don't demand that Christians all be portrayed as saints (they weren't), or people who never committed acts of brutality (they did). But how about at least one serious practicing Christian character? How about maybe showing someone wrestling with his conscience over an egregiously sinful life? (And no, a woman confessing to a priest that she wants to sleep with him doesn't count.) Give me something.
Instead, we see Christians brandishing their faith only when committing the most heinous acts. Now, I don't excuse any misrepresentation of the Norse culture either. But at least it can be argued that Norse paganism is long extinct, and we don't know as much about it, and thus more creative liberties need to be taken. Christianity is a thriving religion today, its history well-recorded, and the creators of this show would not have had to look far to find a consultant who could have steered them toward a marginally more accurate and non-offensive (but still bloody and entertaining) portrayal. Presumably, the "History Channel" employs some people who actually, you know, study history.
But facts and accuracy are out, and lowest-common-denominator revisionist Christian-bashing is in, and why be a part of the solution when you can get paid good money to be a part of the problem? This one started with promise and just couldn't deliver.
Islam: What the West Needs to Know (2006)
Pretty convincing...and frightening...analysis
If you're interested in learning more about the extremist Muslim mindset, both from educated experts and firsthand accounts, with a focus on some of the guiding doctrine behind it, this documentary is highly recommended. The information in here is both broad an deep, as much as can be expected from a documentary film, and presented clearly and convincingly.
And here's a point from the film that deserves special consideration. Extremist Islam actually represents the religion in its purest form. The jihadists are actually practicing the religion as the doctrine dictates, as the leading Muslim authorities teach, and as its been practiced throughout most of its history. It's not individual sick people and societies, but rather the core of the Muslim belief system itself that drives war and terrorism. To paraphrase a quote from the movie: There are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam.
Admittedly, the documentary paints a one-sided picture of Islam, and I'm sure it has more sides. Doubtless, there is another perspective on all the points raised in the film and I would like to hear it.
But in reading over the negative reviews of the film on this site, I didn't see any very cogent criticisms. The gist of them seems to be, "Nuh-uh," or "The film is biased," or "Not all Muslims think like this." Those points are obvious. But the fact that nobody really challenges the points raised in the film head-on tells me there's likely a great deal of truth to it. If not ALL Muslims have the mindset presented in the film, at least a great many of them surely do, and it doesn't take very many to represent a grave danger to Western culture.
Anyway, watch it and decide for yourself what you think. But I suspect you'll learn more accurate information about Islam from this documentary than from Ben Affleck and the whole rest of the Western mainstream media combined.