Posted on 03/06/2004 12:21:43 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Mel Gibson has made a fortune over the last week because of his ability to orchestrate the greatest negative-response marketing campaign in movie history. I call it the "Raspberry Concerto in F-Major."
He got liberals to foam at the mouth in print. Tens of millions of people have paid $8 to find out what the fuss is all about. -- Gary North, Calvinist Presbyterian
Friday, February 6, 2004
Reviewing The Passion
Brian Godawa encourages everyone to go see this movie
I’ve seen an advance screening of Mel Gibson’s controversial new film, The Passion of the Christ. It was a digital projection with a temporary soundtrack and no special effects.Doesn’t matter. It was still the most moving and memorable portrayal of Jesus Christ that I have ever witnessed.
Produced by Mel Gibson, co-written with Benedict Fitzgerald, and starring Jim Caviezel, this masterpiece has clearly been providentially ordained by God for such a time as this.
R-Rated Gospel
The story begins in the Garden of Gethsemane with Christ’s betrayal at the lips of Judas and follows the last twelve hours of his earthly life and crucifixion, ending with a brief scene of his resurrection.
But this is in no way merely another telling of the greatest story ever re-hashed. It is an experiential exploration of the meaning of sacrificial substitutionary atonement like no other Jesus movie has ever depicted. Oh sure, most movies about Christ have covered the injustice, beatings, and crucifixion of our Lord and Savior -- some of them, better than others -- but never like this.
All other Jesus movies are revisionist candy-coated schmaltz compared to this one.
Gibson based the gruesome details of his film upon a famous clinical investigation of Roman crucifixion and punishment, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” published in The Journal of the American Medical Association in 1986. The film translates this historical research onto the screen with a brutal vengeance: scourging whips of leather and bone ripping off flesh, pools of blood, an unidentifiable Christ with His face bashed in. And all of it, true to the Scriptures:
He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. - Isaiah 53:4-7
So His appearance was marred more than any man, And His form more than the sons of men. - Isaiah 52:14
Part of the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 53, quoted above, is shown at the beginning of the movie to provide a biblical context for understanding all the violence that follows. Rather than “adding to the Scriptures,” this historical detail merely translates for contemporary culture what First-century Jewish believers, to whom the Gospels were originally written, knew all too intimately, having lost loved ones themselves to the barbarism of Rome. (The film is not rated at this time, but it will doubtfully receive nothing less than an R-rating. But that’s okay. Much of the Bible is rated R anyway.1)
The point of it all is that the effectiveness of redemption portrayed in any story is exactly equal to the accuracy of the depiction of the depravity from which we are redeemed. The brutal realism of Christ’s suffering points to the depth and costliness of atonement which was achieved for God’s people through His once-for-all sacrifice. To show anything less is to diminish the Gospel. Watching this movie, with its in-your-face grisly realism provides a much-needed corrective to our modern pseudo-gospels with their bloodless Jesuses who exist to fill one’s heart and life with peace, happiness and fulfillment, rather than to die hellishly for sinners and to save them from hell.
Protestant Christian Concerns
There are several concerns that media-wise Protestants may have with The Passion of the Christ. These are 1) the second commandment’s prohibition of images, 2) the shortage of doctrinal teaching in the film, 3) the potential Roman Catholic viewpoints of its filmmakers.
Being a Reformed Protestant, I take these concerns seriously and want to address each of them as briefly as possible in order to allay any fears.
Second Commandment?
Some Protestants insist that any visual representation of Christ, be it pictorial or dramatic, is a violation of the second commandment prohibiting graven images. I fully realize that there is considerable difference of opinion (fervently held) among people who are committed to the abiding validity of the Law of God regarding this issue, and I cannot enter extensively into that discussion here. For my purposes it is sufficient to note that any understanding of the second commandment must do justice to the fact of the incarnation of God in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth. Moses’ statement in Deuteronomy 4:15, offered as the ground of the second commandment, “you saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully," can no longer be said of the incarnate God. It is true, we have no physical "portraiture" of Christ (and any such attempts must be acknowledged as imaginative), but that Jesus can be portrayed dramatically as a human being in historical situations does not seem counter to the concerns of the second commandment. As Greg L. Bahnsen reminded us, we dare not allow our interpretation of the second commandment to lead us into a docetic diminution of the reality of the Incarnation.2 The Passion of the Christ is a narrative depiction of Christ’s humanity and His fulfillment of His mission as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), not an iconic representation of His divinity to worship.3
Shortage of Doctrine?
Most Jesus movies tend to reflect the prevailing zeitgeist of their era, and Passion is no exception. The first Jesus movies, made more in an era of belief, tended to emphasize His deity at the expense of his humanity (Intolerance, King of Kings). Later movies, made in an era of skepticism, tended to emphasize His humanity at the expense of his deity (Jesus Christ Superstar, Godspell), or worse, make Him out to be sinful (The Last Temptation of Christ). But all these movies were, to a degree, modernist renditions focusing on Christ’s didactic teaching culminating in the cross as the ultimate embodiment of that theology.4
In Passion Gibson has chosen to dramatize a portion of Scripture where our Lord has comparatively little to say ("He opened not His mouth," Isa. 53:7) and very much to do. Thus it is not surprising that there is relatively little overt doctrine protrayed in the film. The doctrinal perspective that is set forth, however, spare though it may be, is consistent with the biblical narratives from which Gibson is working.
We live in a world in the grip of postmodernism with its negation of reason, language, and discourse. People are bored with sermonizing and preachiness, especially in the arts. They just won’t listen to reason. They want to experience your metanarrative, not mentally process it with the questionable faculties of "logocentric" rationality. Make no mistake, this postmodern prejudice is imbalanced, fallacious and spiritually destructive. But like Paul identifying to a certain extent with pagan philosophers on Mars Hill, so Passion meets the postmodern challenge with a legitimate experience of Christ (dramatic and emotional, though not irrational). The story is presented through strong images and minimal dialogue that will transcend culture and denomination alike. That’s the power of image. It may be the only movie about Jesus that most GenX or GenY postmodern young people will ever consider watching.
The answer to the potential dangers of a postmodern Christ narrative is not to dwell on the inadequacies of this particular approach. After all, no presentation is without blemish. Reformed thinking has sometimes emphasized a word-oriented theology to the near-exclusion of image, and sometimes to the total exclusion of image, and we may suffer under an imbalance opposite that of the postmodern. The truth is “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), a perfect unity of word and image.
Rather than nit-picking imperfections, we should use this movie as a stepping stone, a tool to open doors. You should watch this movie with your unbelieving friends and family and fill in the holes of doctrinal truth and elaborate on the visual or experiential elements of the movie. Bring word in balance with image. People don’t usually get saved watching movies, anyway. They usually get saved because a person explained the Gospel to them in person, answered their questions and filled in the gaps. Witnessing is more than simply abstract proposition, it is personal and relational as well. So engage in that human interaction that a movie about Jesus can inspire but not provide.5
A Romish Bias?
A third concern of some Protestants regards the Roman Catholic theology of Mel Gibson, the producer and passion behind Passion. I don’t know Mr. Gibson personally, so I can’t speak for him; but as a Protestant Christian, I can say that if there is any Roman influence on the film, it is negligible to the point of irrelevance.
Christ’s actual teachings in the film are minimal and told in flashback, so truth is delivered more through context than proposition. For instance, the Lord’s Supper is remembered at one point in Christ’s bloody punishment. Yet, this symbolic connection is entirely in accord with John’s Gospel narrative, where “eating His flesh” and “drinking His blood” is a sacramental connection with His death and suffering (John 6:52-59). There is no apparent notion in the film of Eucharistic transubstantiation, such as in The Last Temptation of Christ, where Christ literally rips out His flesh and asks His disciples to eat it.
Even the sensitive and loving portrait of Mary in the movie does not seem to elevate her to the position of "co-mediatrix". I watched for this exaltation, but was pleasantly relieved. If anything, Mary’s part in the story is a welcomed corrective to the Protestant pendulum swing of downplaying the mother of Jesus. She is shown as a loving mother with a young adult Jesus who teases her affectionately. No "Queen of Heaven" there, just a good mom. She is shown racked with spiritual anguish -- "pierced in her own soul" (Luke 2:35) -- at every beating of Jesus. And whose mother would not vicariously experience the punishment of her son? She wipes His blood off the ground in an irrational reaction of helplessness. I know my mother would. There is a beautiful scene where Mary watches Christ fall on the Via Dolorosa, and cannot help Him, but in her mind remembers Him as a little child falling, and herself running to His aid. Very moving, very real, and very much like my mom.
Mary holds Christ’s body after being taken down from the cross in what has come to be a symbolic “Pietá” pose. While it may be the case that the Pietá in Roman Catholic theology became a symbolic reference to Mary’s co-redemptive unity with Christ, it was first of all an altogether believable expression of a mother's love of her dead son (even if the detail is not recorded in the biblical narrative), and can be appreciated on that level. We are not uneducated plebians relying on sculpture as our text.
There is also a powerful ironic moment where Christ is being led to His scourging and the devil appears in the crowd holding a mutant baby as an androgynous mockery of Christ’s own virginal incarnation. Let’s not forget that the virgin birth was, after all, a key event in Christianity, regardless of denomination.
The short of it all is that the filmmaker’s Roman Catholicism brings mere accent and flavor to the film’s orthodox presentation without slipping into partisan heresy. It shows the perfectly human realistic reactions and connection that Jesus’s mother would have in such an extreme situation. And if such minor symbolic references are so easily reinterpreted depending on the viewer’s theological perspective, then those symbols need not compel us to specific didactic conclusions.
Death Versus Resurrection
Lastly, it appears that the origin of Passion Plays in the Middle Ages was in part theologically motivated. Although there were Easter, Mystery, and Miracle Plays as well, the Passion Play did tend to emphasize the death of Christ at the expense of His resurrection. True, the early Church did not create art that focused on Christ’s death. There were no crosses in the catacombs. Also true that the Protestant Reformation rightfully stressed the resurrection victory of Christ with His death as a means to that end. So, yes, there is the danger of imbalance in Passion Plays.
But the focal point of Christ’s death in Romanism was also practically motivated, rooted in the interest of the peasant class that was largely illiterate or without access to the written Scriptures. Drama could incarnate the Gospel narrative for those without privileged status. Because transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass in Roman Catholicism was intended to be salvific, the Passion Play brought that sacrifice dramatically to the peasant for his personal redemptive involvement. The purpose of focusing on suffering was to evoke pity. The priests mistakenly believed that pitying Christ could be a starting point for faith. While this is a real danger for a non-Christian to fall into while watching Passion, it is also a danger for any truth claim in today’s world.
Similar to the Middle Ages, many people today are largely unliterate and image-oriented, with entertainment media functionally operating as their canonical texts. Our society worships emotion over cognition or action. It mistakes feeling for participation. Many wrongly suppose that watching a celebrity charity rock concert is the same as actually helping the poor; they are deluded into believing that weeping over the plight of starving children on TV is equivalent to feeding the hungry. So also, many people mistakenly conclude that "believing in God" is to be saved, being perilously unaware that even demons do so and shudder (James 2:19). So this problem of erroneous participation in truth is more a function of the social mileu than the fault of artistic image. We must be sure to communicate with those who watch Passion that feeling sorry for Jesus as the ultimate victim is not the same as being His disciple.
By the same token, it is just as fallacious for Christians to think that critiquing the imperfect attempts at bringing God into Hollywood movies as somehow participating in the cultural mandate. The cultural mandate is not to merely criticize but to create. You must interact redemptively with culture if you want to reform it.
Conclusion
As Christians we are called upon by our Lord not only to promote His Kingdom and righteousness (Matt. 6:33) -- the work of cultural renewal and reconstruction -- but also to "strengthen the things that remain" (Rev. 3:2). Here’s one way in which we can actually participate in the cultural mandate. Unfortunately, the success of any movie in the eyes of Hollywood studios is determined by the box office numbers of the first two weeks. Many good movies don’t make much money and disappear into video oblivion because they don’t have the marketing support that big blockbusters do. This makes those good movies harder to produce because the studios don’t see the profit in it. Christians are always complaining about how Hollywood doesn’t make movies that share their values. Well, the best way to change that is to go to the few movies that do. and buy the videos. You vote with your dollars. Mel Gibson is not releasing his movie through a big studio, so he doesn’t have the mega-marketing support behind him. If a ton of people don’t see this movie in the first couple weeks of release it may die in the box office.
Here’s how we can change all that. Here’s how we can be a Reforming force of cultural influence. If Christians go see The Passion of the Christ in droves on the first two weeks of its release, then Mr. Gibson will have the box office proof that will enable him to release it to even more theaters (this happened with "sleeper films" like The Blair Witch Project and Memento), and believe it or not, studios will sit up and notice. The Passion of the Christ opens everywhere on February 25, 2004. If you want to make a difference, if you want Hollywood to make more movies with a Christian worldview, then go see Passion within its opening two weeks. Schedule it on your calendar now, so you don’t forget. But don’t just go by yourself, get a group of friends. And don’t just go once, go twice. It’s the multiple viewings that skyrocket a film’s numbers (e.g., The Lord of the Rings). And last of all, buy the video or DVD when it comes out.
Let’s not just critique culture, let’s actually transform it by being involved in it. I call that redemptive interaction with culture. I call that The Passion of the Church.
Brian Godawa is a Hollywood screenwriter who wrote the award-winning feature film, To End All Wars, starring Kiefer Sutherland and Robert Carlyle. He is currently adapting two novels to film by best-selling author Frank Peretti. He is the author of Hollywood Worldviews: Watching Films with Wisdom and Discernment (InterVarsity Press).
Notes
1. See Brian Godawa, Appendix: “Sex, Violence, and Profanity in the Bible,” Hollywood Worldviews: Watching Films with Wisdom and Discernment, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2002), pp. 187-208.
2. "Docetism" was an early Christian heresy which denied the reality of the incarnation, claiming Jesus' humanity was merely an "appearance."
3. We will leave for another time a discussion of whether Jesus' divinity can be adequately portrayed artistically, and whether that is a theological or aesthetic problem or not. Having said all this, any reader who has biblical scruples against viewing representational art involving the Lord Jesus should not take this review as an encouragement to go against his conscience. "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind" (Rom. 14:5).
4. I document this in more detail in my article, “Jesus in the Movies,” on my website.
5. Another question that deserves further exploration, and one which Francis Schaeffer and Hans Rookmaker have addressed in their writings, is the relationship of Christian art as art to evangelism. Does Christian art, including film, need a justification outside itself?
In review -- I find I cannot improve on Brian Godawa's review (which I waited to post on FR until I had seen the movie for myself).
I think this is the only motion picture I have ever witnessed in which the entire audience left the theater in solemn, absolute, abject silence. Nor did I attend it with some Church Group or Catholic Youth League outing.... I went by myself, joined in attendance by a motley assortment of various Friday-Night, out-on-the-town Key Westers, many making conversation and jokes before the lights dimmed.
Nobody was making conversation and telling jokes when it was over. No "How'd you like the film..." or "What about that one part..." or even "Wow, that was intense..." And this, in Key West -- the Sodom of the Caribbean.... utter silence. Nobody -- I mean nobody, Christian, Pagan, whoever -- was speaking a single word.
I don't think anyone dared.
From the Article:
'Nuff said.
By the way, sonrise... have you asked to be included on "DrSteveJ" and "nobdysfool"s Great Reformed Ping List (GRPL)? It's not a very high-volume Ping List, but all FR Reformed Protestants are welcome to inclusion (over 50 at last count). Just send "nobydsfool" a FReepMail if you want on the list.
Of course, Newbies buy the donuts and coffee. ;-)
Thanks for the review. Any reviewer quoting Greg Bahnsen has my attention.
I don't think God hands out one-billion dollar world-wide box office lightly. The country was hungry for Christ, and an actor fed them.
It's very satisfying.
Well, as Gary North points out, God had some "help" -- the Devils of Hell themselves are screaming against this movie.
But Our God rules over even the Devils, allowing them only such actions as He permits, and employing them to His Advantage.
On a purely-Protestant note, after viewing this movie I find it very difficult to doubt Mel Gibson's own Salvation. Yes, he's a Traditionalist Catholic -- and, if the rumors of his Sedevacantism are true, then perhaps the Holy Spirit has peculiarly protected him from the Heresy of Papal Infallibility -- but we do know that all those who trust in the Sacrificial Atonement of Christ Alone shall be Saved.
Very late in the movie, when you see a pair of hands holding the nail against Jesus' palms and driving them into the Cross -- it is generally reported that Gibson insisted that his own hands be filmed holding the spike, and bringing the hammer down.
If that "insider report" is true, then I have a hard time believing that this is a man who trusts in Works and Worthiness, Icons and Indulgences for the Salvation of his soul. This is a man who is properly terrified by the Reality of the Incarnation.... and the FEAR of the Lord is the Beginning of Wisdom.
All those who trust in the Sacrificial Atonement of Christ Alone shall be Saved... my own hope, and my hope for Mel Gibson.
Tell your Older Saints not to judge a book by it's cover... this is not a "Roman Catholic" Movie by any stretch (besides, Mel Gibson has his own disagreements with the Roman Popes). "As a Protestant Christian, I can say that if there is any Roman influence on the film, it is negligible to the point of irrelevance." -- Brian Godawa
This movie is no partisan paean to Roman Catholic Passion Plays. This movie is a Universal Filmographic Icon of the Crucifixion of Christ.
This is, quite simply, a "Jesus Movie".
In fact, by comparison to every Christian Movie ever made... this is THE Jesus Movie.
All other Jesus movies are revisionist candy-coated schmaltz compared to this one.
Best, OP
I agree with the author's view of Mary in the film. Those scenes were some of the most moving.
Huh? This seems like breaking News to me. If it can be verified it needs to go there.
Precisely
This is not an entertaining film. If you want to be entertained, go see a comedy. The Passion of the Christ is a serious investigation of the death of Christ.
I was thinking yesterday about some of the scenes added from the text. There are scenes and lines that were not in the original text. The temptation scene in the garden is the most notable. There is no Biblical support for the temptation of Christ in Gethsemane. We know from Luke that the Devil was waiting to tempt Christ till a more opportune time, and Gethsemane certainly seems to fit the bill. Something certainly made Christ so agitated that he was diaphoretic, at least (I'm not convinced "sweat like drops of blood" refers to hematridosis -- thats a very rare condition.) Why Christ was in such torment and agitation, I don't know. A Satanic challange is certainly a reasonable interpretation.
However, we must consider what Gibson was trying to do: he had to compress the essence of the Gospel narratives in 2 hours. Of course he had to change small details: to exempilfy grace, he combined Mary Magdalene with the woman in Jn. 8. Every frame seems deliberately set up so as to convey the stakes behind the sufferings of Christ. The Isa 53:5 quotation in the opening frame sets the tone of Christ's substitionary sacrifice.
Mary is not overemphasized. It seems as though Gibson deliberately de-emphasized her from his own Catholic theology. There is little that she does that could not be interpreted as merely a very loving mother. That flashback scene, IMHO, defines that tone.
I wish they had added one scene: Caiphas seemed too much like a cartoonish villian to me. I would have liked it if they had explained some of the rationale behind his moves. They did for Pilate, why did they not for Caiphas? Why not have the scene where he says the Jn 10 bit about how it is better for one man to die for the whole nation rather than the nation perish? Do a flashback scene to the 2nd cleansing of the temple. That might have alleviated a little bit of the anti-semetic charges. (Which were groundless to begin with).
I'm rambling a little, so I'm gonna stop now ;-).
AAABEST is correct. If this News can be verified, it should immediately be posted on the "Breaking News" section of the Main Forum (Jim Robinson will allow this; he does allow "Prayers for all for are in Authority" regardless of Forum).
It should also be posted as a Separate Thread on the Religion Forum.
I am just a Religious Debater, and not a particularly Righteous one at that. But I do know that "The Prayers of a Righteous Man accomplish much", and John Ashcroft (regardless of anyone's Policy differences) is a Good Christian Man who deserves better prayers than a Theological Brawler like myself can offer.
The Prayers of the Saints are as a pleasing incense unto the Lord.
This News, if True, should be verified and immediately posted to the Main Forum and the Religion Forum respectively.
I'm not crazy about his politics at times but I thought it was rather serious and I was wondering why the story hadn't received more coverage.
Maybe we're missing something and he's not that serious. I've been out of the loop as far as News goes so who knows.
In any case, prayers for Mr. Ashcroft.
I don't know a thing about the possibility of extreme stress causing the blood capillaries of the sweat and tear glands to burst, so I'm gonna have to call the GRPL Medical Physicians in on that one (hello, The_Doc and Jerry_M; and let's call Xzins also, being a Combat Medic even if he denies Calvinist Predestination).... I honestly don't know.
That said, when you say "Why Christ was in such torment and agitation, I don't know. A Satanic challange is certainly a reasonable interpretation", you may not be aware that you are in total agreement with (Calvinist Presbyterian) Gary North's analysis of the Gethsemane Torment. North's analysis as follows:
Incidentally, Gary North does NOT believe that "Jesus got lost in the Translation". This is the Crux of his review:
"On the whole, I recommend this movie. But I do not intend to see it a second time.
It too faithfully portrays the agony of the event. Once is enough."
I know what Gary North is saying, but ambivalently. The Passion really communicated the abject horror of the Gospel, which is so rarely treated upon.
I'm probably gonna read the Gospels again. And... I'm probably gonna see The Passion again. The first time was just too terrifying, trying not to cry for two hours straight. I'll try to meditate the next time around.
You know what? Even AFTER viewing The Passion, I found your Post incredibly hyperbolic.
"The Most Important Movie Ever Made"?! Yeah, right!!
Compared to...
Er, like I was saying, Compared to...
Um... well, bollocks. You may just be right about that.
Hollywood's been producing movies for over 100 years, and...
Frankly, you take any other movie that's ever won an Oscar or three or ten...
Just a gold-plated figurine, isn't it?
I guess Brian Godawa said it best...
And not just "Jesus Movies", for that matter.
Take Citizen Kane. Take The Godfather. Take Star Wars. Take Gone with the Wind. Heck, take Schindler's List.
As of Ash Wednesday, AD 2004... Mel Gibson has made all of them look like mawkish crap.
I thought that Mel Gibson might Sanctify the Art of Film as a legitimate Form of Icon with his The Passion of the Christ.
Only he hasn't done that. He hasn't "sanctified" the Art of Film, he's dropped an Atomic Bomb on it. Compared to The Passion of the Christ, virtually every Film ever made is a child's finger-painting.
It's because Christ was the Second Adam. Under the Ground Curse of Genesis 3, the First Adam was supposed to water the parched ground by the sweat of his brow. (This is merely a metaphor for toil, of course.) In the Gethsemane episode, one of the Gospel writers (Luke, I think) goes to the unusual trouble of pointing out that in this Second Garden, the sweat from Christ's blood fell and hit the ground.
This establishes a parallelism. The First Adam was supposed to bring forth bread from the earth, from the now-cursed Garden of the earth. The Second Adam was supposed to bring forth spiritual bread from this world--and that bread is obviously redeemed sinners.
The key seems to be that both episodes are in a garden and that an idea of sweat watering the ground is presented in both episodes.
But mere sweat from the Second Adam is not redemptive, i.e, will not bring forth saved sinners from the world. Mere sweat is merely the emblem of mere toil. It takes Christ's blood hitting the ground to be redemptive in the overall Biblical-theological figure.
I still don't see the absolute theological necessity for Christ's blood to be tinged with blood. If it were, you're right, it creates an interesting parallelism. However, all the text says is that Christ's sweat was approximately like drops of blood. That seems a little ambiguious, and thus, I'm unwilling to stake anything upon that interpretation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.