Depictions of religious stories: real or authentic?

“The Manga Bible” and “The Book of Genesis Illustrated b R. Crumb” are two comic book versions of Genesis. These recreations of the story of the bible demonstrate several of the issues of mythology, namely losing information in translation. The story of Genesis has been retold for thousands and thousands of years, and ideas, plot, characters, and many other aspects of the story can change when so many people are telling it. Culture, time period, and place may all have an impact on the way the story is told. This can be seen in R. Crumb’s cartoon version because his story of creation is depicted much differently from the original version and from “The Magna Bible” version. For example, two humans are created, but later, God forms Adam’s identity and after that God extracts a rib from his body. This differs from the original creation story because in the original, Adam is the first and only human created, and then a woman, Eve, is made from one of Adam’s ribs. An interesting aspect of “The Magna Bible” depiction is that in some ways it demonstrates the secularism of religious stories. This doesn’t really include the meaning of the creation story. Instead it uses anime to tell the story and excludes the religious meaning behind the plotline. One other issue really stands out to me, which is that by including images with a story, it can significantly change the perception and interpretation. For example, both of these comics depict God with lots of facial hair and a cane. Also images can change the emphasis that is put on certain aspects of the story. Adam is depicted as very chiseled and masculine, while Eve is shown to be beautiful with extremely feminine features. These aspects of the story seem unimportant, however they highlight the gender constructs that are not as prevalent in the original version.

All of these issues make me wonder, what is real and what is authentic? If stories are being retold in different ways, who is the one to decide which version is accurate? If religious stories are becoming more secular, then who is to say that it is even a religious story at this point? I think that the point of the bible is to teach certain beliefs and values. However, if the stories are becoming so secular, like in movies such as Noah, then how can that be considered an authentic religious story? I don’t think that it can be, which is where many issues lie with mythology. Also, who is to say that these physical depictions are accurate? Maybe these physical aspects of the story are unimportant, but they definitely may change the way that future generations view the creation story, and all the other stories of the bible.

The Life and Authenticity of Cinematic Myth

The Life and Authenticity of Cinematic Myth

     When a myth is portrayed in the audio-visual format in a cinematic setting, the story being told goes through a process unique to this medium of storytelling. The most distinct effect film has on myth-telling is the tangible life the stories are given; being able to engage our sight senses in a story allows the audience to absorb the tale to a new level unattainable by other forms of storytelling. For example, devout followers of the Star Wars film series are able to deeply connect to the mythology, and each other, because they are able to see uniform evidence of the scenery, individuals, and objects in the myth, rather than leaving those details up for their own imaginations. Without the visual aspect, audience members all interpret the story differently because of the diversity of their individual imaginations: visual imagery allows everyone to see and comprehend exactly the same thing.
     However, while cinematic story-telling gives myths more "tangible" life, it hinders their authenticity. Part of the beauty of reading, and verbally telling tales over generations is the act of wishful wonder they inspire. Stories that are told verbally, or read, follow an "innocent until proven guilty" principle. Because there is no physical evidence for why these stories couldn't have occurred, there is just as much evidence for why they may have actually occurred. Myths told in the audio-visual format lose that sense of wonder because the story unfolds right before the audience's eyes, exposing the story's fraudulence.

What is Authenticity?

This week we have wrestled with notions of authenticity in religion. Authenticity is being worthy of acceptance or belief based on, or conforming to fact. In every facet of human life we are forced to perceive authenticity, from music to movies. Religion poses a far more difficult application of authenticity because it is chiefly based in the subjective. More importantly, it’s chiefly based in a belief system that reaffirms the authenticity of the religion.

In Kumare and Seinfeld, we have seen the power of seemingly unauthentic religions. In Kumare, fourteen people followed the every teaching of a faux guru. His fabricated backstory and rituals provided legitimacy to his teachings. In many cases he was saying exactly what his followers had said to him but his authenticity brought their belief. In Seinfeld, George’s father creates the holiday of Festivus, equipped with a giant ceremonial pole and rituals like “The Airing of Grievances.” Both Kumare and Festivus have their own objects, teachings, events like many religions, however, we still would question considering these religious aspects as authentic.

As Chidester argues, “what counts as religion is the focus of the problem of authenticity” (9). Religion and American Pop Culture share many properties but that does not equate them. What is it that distinctly separates what is religious and what is not?

Authentic v. Fake: If the connection is real, does it matter?

David Chidester's Authentic Fakes considers that "even fake religions can be doing a kind of symbolic, cultural, and religious work that is real." (9) The key word in this idea being real. Religion ultimately involves real connections, real advice, and real experiences woven into an identity larger than oneself. 

As demonstrated through Vikram Gandhi's documentary Kumaré, a completely fabricated religion filled with seemingly meaningless rituals, like the yoga movements, was able to very intimately connect with different people. Sure Kumaré's fake costume and props could have facilitated his supporters' trust initially, but ultimately people stick by him at the end of the film because he was a real companion. His kind of teaching encouraged peoples' beliefs in themselves, and as such they could trust him in the end because he did not claim to be a prophet or other godly-figure; he merely acts as an enabler for individuals faith in their own powers and abilities.

Similarly, the celebration of the fabricated holiday, Festivus in Seinfeld, encompasses very real and honest dialogue. Through the "feats of strength" and "airing of grievances", very truthful communication can take place. Although the holiday observance evokes humor on the show, its purpose is to acknowledge real experiences, good or bad, and to celebrate life in its entirety.
Although these are two fabricated religious experiences, they honor real experiences and interactions and allow people to connect and grow. If someone benefits from these religions, does it matter if they were fake originally?

Material Religion: Using Real Objects to Authenticate Fake Religion

Our discussions this week emphasized the dualities inherent in religion such as fake versus authentic and concrete versus abstract; contradicting concepts that are heavily dependent on each other. In order to make a religion authentic, we call on existing physical objects to use as props in order to help us achieve a transcendental state. We see this reliance on material objects in every form of religion, both fake and authentic. In Seinfeld’s Festivus, a metal pole replaces the Christmas tree. Kumaré carries the Ohm staff. Children gather around a Christmas tree to collect gifts and sports fans buy jerseys and baseball caps to support their favorite teams. The nativity scene remains a key symbol in the Catholic religion. On The Daily Show Jon Stewart ridicules one news reporter’s rant that a festivus pole was put up in front of a nativity scene in Florida. She obsesses as if having full access to a plastic nativity setup is the only way to celebrate her faith in god. 

            Chidester specifically notes the growing significance of material possessions in American pop-culture: “ human identity and community… have been focused on material objects… invested with transcendent power and sacred significance, the consumer product has emerged as the modern fetish, the object of religious desire in a capitalist economy.” The role of the object has transformed from helping to establish the religion, to becoming the religion. Chidster uses Coke and the company's museum as an example. Coke is a product everyone can enjoy, from the President of the United States, to an average teenager. It is the ultimate symbol of community, togetherness, and equality.

            So if studying religion is a means of considering human behavior, then what can we draw from our reliance on material objects to authenticate religion and find inner peace? Do we consider this just one more ruinous consequence of consumer America leading us down a doomed path? Should we be wary that these new “meccas” are built by large corporations just to take money from their “followers'” pockets? Or like any other fake religion we have discussed, do the ends justify the means? Do people just gravitate towards material objects because they are accessible and facilitate togetherness? If Americans can find happiness from celebrating these commodities, does the process through which that happiness is achieved really matter at all?

Creating Authenticity

        Why do individuals need an authentic source? Why must we have a real guru or supernatural force to legitimize our faith? In the film Kumaré, Kumaré’s followers were willing to listen to him because he seemed to be a real guru. However, as the film progressed, Kumaré provided the same amount of help and peace that one derives from a “real” religion. In a sense, the film demonstrated that authenticity is not necessary to give people what they need. This sentiment was echoed throughout the readings this week. If the power to attain inner peace has been ours along, then why do we need an authentic source to act as a conduit for us? Where does the need for authenticity come from? Why do we need the son of God or a mystical guru to help us? If Kumaré had presented himself as an average man, would anyone have listened to him? Probably not. Perhaps we crave this authenticity because the guidelines that we adopt from religion are so consuming. As Martyn Oliver argued in “10 Things Every College Student Needs to Know About Religion”, ritual can be more important than belief. So, if one is going to so strongly adopt a code to live by or if said code is already integral to their identity than it has to be extremely significant. If it is going to take or already holds such a prestigious position in one’s life, then it has to have a fair amount of meaning. Meaning that powerful can be found in an “authentic” source like God or an Indian guru. Their “realness” elevates the status of one’s belief and perhaps provides a sense of affirmation for its adoption. 

Fakeness vs. Authenticity in Religion

David Chidester wrote in his book Authentic Fakes, “even fake religions can be doing a kind of symbolic, cultural, and religious work that is real,” (Introduction, 9). This quote captures the central theme of our discussions this week, fakeness versus authenticity. In the film Kumaré, Vikram Gandhi literally makes a fake religion, yet he obtains a following so strong that he changes peoples’ lives. But what really is it about Kumaré that people got so attached to? First of all, there are physical aspects of Kumaré that made him seem authentic (as seen in the photo below), such as his hair, clothes, beard, and even his props (necklace and walking stick). He even created fake chants and yoga moves. However, what made his “religion” real weren’t the physical aspects, but the beliefs he taught. His teachings include that all people have a guru and happiness inside. Kumaré was able to help his followers with real problems, such as marriage issues, weight loss troubles, and even career problems. The help that he provided these people was completely authentic even though the physical aspects of the religion were fake. It is obvious after this week that fakeness and authenticity come hand in hand. There are fake aspects of every religion. Christianity is as real as a religion can get, however, aspects like Santa Claus and Christmas trees are unauthentic. Even though Christmas is related to these fake aspects, the meaning of Christmas is completely real. Kumaré, as well as Christmas both prove that you cannot have authenticity without fakeness in a religion and vice versa.