Sometimes things that bug me in movies of the bible are bothersome,for example I do quite like the movie Joseph king of dreams,but it just has so many errors that I don't like watching It after reading the bible,for instance in the movie they have Rachel alive in Canaan and making the coat of many colors when both of these "aren't true" Rachel died having Benjamin before her,Jacob and their children got to Canaan,and Jacob made the coat of many colors for Joseph "not Rachel",so sometimes that sort of thing annoys me though I still like the song "you know better than I" but biblical movies I feel are treated as fairytales when they shouldn't be.
It's against the second commandment of God to portray the Truth or realities of God or the events described by his words with our limited understandings, ability to "capture" what actually is or happened, and when "acting". I would say this applies to both making images of Christ attempting to capture his human form which is impossible and will always fall so short and be a massive inaccuracy (considering he by all accounts including biblical is not even white not to mention capturing his soul in the eyes and expression), and filming any humans acting as if they are portraying the actual characters and events.
I mean I liked the passion of the Christ and maybe it can do some good for the unbeliever to see, but the reality is you are having a sinful men pretend he is Christ and portray how He acted in his moments of struggle and suffering. The image of the actor is a disrespectful because it lacks the glory it deserves, and that's not for us to decide what those events looked like. When Christ is asking God right before he is captured if there is another way,
that is not for us to ever decide what that moment looked like or show Him struggling with that. Same goes for the crucifixion, we can't capture His glory and strength in that moment and everything will fall short. Having those false depictions in our memory is counter to the truth.
If we are to depict these things or honor them it should probably always be symbolic in nature or figurative and never attempting to capture "realistic" or "exact" images or details. If we want to go into more detail or get realistic, then maybe we should just portray something else not claiming to be biblical, and let it just be similar in theme or message. And with this mentality I guess I am saying that a realistic looking Christ on the cross in the churches should just be the cross or much more symbolic. Idk if I feel that way but it's a graven image by the definition I just gave. The more realistic and less symbolic you get taking personal liberties with details you cross further over to graven image territory.
The more extreme argument is to say that all "art" not entirely devoted to God or that attempts to capture any reality (in heaven, earth, or the sea) is a graven image of the creation and should not be allowed. I think prior to the reformation period they weren't allowed to deviate from a strictly religious purpose for any art. If you look at the imagery from those times it's usually more symbolic looking than trying to capture reality .I'm not saying all art is damaging or bad that is not strictly devotional, but maybe allowing it can only do more harm than good when not everyone will reject the bad and look with contextual filters.
