Controversial Portrait of God: Peering Behind the Divine Curtain
The recent short horror film “Portrait of God” set the internet aflame with its sinister visual reimagining of the deity revered by over 3.5 billion Abrahamic worshippers globally. This microbudget piece of guerrilla filmmaking has pried open a theological debate simmering for centuries — how can flawed humanity truly represent the nature of a divine being that transcends the limits of material existence?
The internet outrage machine whirred into high gear upon release as some believers called for the film to be banned for blasphemous depictions under religious desecration laws. But bans and censorship often paradoxically boost public curiosity, triggering even more shares across social platforms. Depending on who you ask, director Christian Suneson is either provocateur profaning sacred beliefs for fame — or righteous disrupter daring to update ossified visual iconography for the modern world.
To probe this issue in depth, we must first view this film within the context of shifting socioreligious mores and historic visual representations of holy figures across Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism and Islam.
The Tradition of Crafting Divine Depictions
While the Koran wholly forbids depicting sentient beings like Mohammed or Allah, Christianity adopted iconography early on to educate converts unable to read. Byzantine styles influenced Orthodox Christian art from the 4th century onwards with highly stylized mosaics and paintings of biblical events. Figures followed artistic standards rather than realism — golden halos around heads, idealized human forms to reflect internal divinity rather than external appearance.
Catholic art moved towards humanizing saints and clergy over several centuries — but God remained symbolized indirectly (as beams of light). The miracle of transubstantiation also spurred taboos around physical embodiment. It was not until the radical cultural reboot of the Renaissance that Michelangelo dared depict the iconic bearded God figure from Genesis frescoed across the Sistine Chapel ceiling. And crucially, only God’s face and fingers emerge physical from the heavenly firmaments — the corporeal form remains suggested, not stated.
This retains continuity with Exodus 33:20 — "You cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live”. So while Jesus coalesced into familiar human form by the late Middle Ages, the Almighty watched from the distant cosmos.
Until the Age of Reason critiqued Mosaic authorship and historical accuracy of holy texts in the 17th and 18th centuries, such symbolic representation remained largely unchallenged. Could Portrait of God represent the next inflection point for Judaeo-Christian iconography in an increasingly secular world skeptical of organized religion?
Horror as a Mirror to the Soul
While many denounced Portrait’s twisted vision of the Most High as offensive parody, the symbiosis between religious ecstasy and horror has existed for over two millennia. In 1758 philosopher Edmund Burke wrote “On the Sublime and Beautiful”, equating awe to terror. His ideas would guide Gothic revival style and 19th century romantic/horror fiction like Frankenstein critiquing “godlike” scientific overreach.
This link deepened in pulp horror from writers like devout Anglo-Catholic M.R. James and Paracelsus scholar Robert E. Howard conflating ancient legends, witchcraft and invented myth cycles across popular magazines in the early 20th century. Directors like Val Lewton brought pulp horror to cinema by producing brooding masterpieces like Cat People. And crucifixes, holy water and prayers persisted as weapons against classic monsters like Dracula explicitly damned by God.
As special effects advanced through the late 20th century allowing more graphic exorcism horror, religious leaders recognized cinema’s grip on mass culture could channel more literal evangelism. Mega-church preacher Rev. Billy Graham even promoted The Exorcist to youth groups as a fire-and-brimstone allegory. And with producers chasing younger secular patrons over older churchgoers, we see protagonists shift from virtuous priests to flawed everymen battling personal crises of faith. Which brings us to Portrait director Christian Suneson.
Interview with a (Guerrilla) Filmmaker
Over a choppy Zoom call, Suneson explained his journey losing Lutheran faith as a teen before rediscovering spirituality via Buddhism in his early 20s. Like philosopher Peter Rollins, he seeks ways beyond rigid religious strictures into more fluid, equitable means of community support. This drive to breach sacred/profane boundaries animates his film work.
“I created Portrait after reading bout the ‘image of Edessa’ – supposedly the first portrait of Jesus made in life,” he shares. “This holy relic went missing for centuries until a horrifying vision depicted in this early Renaissance painting – a dark inversion of the beatific face people prayed to.”
While simply an artist’s imagination, the concept stayed with Suneson. What better way to update religious iconography than through the same folk horror and uncanny dread those original depictions aimed to console followers against?
“Core elements of mysticism like speaking in tongues seem totally bizarre and horrifying stripped from liturgical context. I aimed to recreate that ‘numinous terror’ for modern secular audiences. Not to mock beliefs I was raised with, but inviting viewers to feel the raw power behind dead metaphor.”
Early social media comments suggesting the director was “mentally ill” or “possessed” seem ironic affirmations of this theory. And Suneson is already expanding Portrait into a multimedia transmedia mythos, having directed an uncanny mimic to “speak in tongues” shouting “Blasphemer!” at live showings – heightening the meta layers of performance and proselytization.
Cultural Commentators Chime In
Professor John Ryan founded faithX at Harvard Divinity School to equip religious communities with media literacy against demagogic radicalization. He sees Portrait less ‘blasphemous’ than a reflection of dysphoria many millennials feel towards outmoded faith traditions.
“Young people crave belonging and induction into the ‘sacred mysteries’ religion seems to offer,” Ryan notes, “but without sacrificing personal autonomy or embracing dogmas seen as intolerant”.
The bloodshed in Portrait’s climax seems less an attack on Amish piety than how zealotry infects any ideology taken to an inflexible extreme. Ryan ultimately sees the film as constructive commentary rather than sacrilege.
“Unsettling art like this dissolves barriers to make room for updated interpretations resonant with modern mores around gender, orientation, otherness. Is stretching ideas of the divine into even monstrous new forms necessarily blasphemous if the divine by definition transcends one ‘true’ depiction?”
The Takeaway
Director Christian Suneson joins generations of artists influenced by the Gothic and questions around embodying holy figures literally or symbolically. Does visually dragging the Word Made Flesh or God the Father down from the heavens to inhabit human stories do violence to the sacred mystery that gives faith its psychological traction? Or are even nightmarish reconfigurations legitimate invitations to reconnect modern secular audiences raised on video games and VR towards these primordial belief templates?
For Suneson the answer seems clear. Horror provides the sharpest tools to fracture calcified assumptions and renovate spiritual technologies long faded into rote routine rather than revelation. Yet only time will tell whether his film earns admiration as taboo-busting masterpiece, or condemnation…as roadmap to Hell.