DaVinci Code

[Killer Joe]

I'm going to go see it this Wednesday. My mother-in-law has been called upon to 'rally' against it but she isn't sure why she's rallying against it. She thought the movie promotes satanisim or the denouncing of the existence of Catholisim or something like that.

I'm not exactly sure why folks are protesting against it except maybe these people think Ron Howard is trying to tempt them away from thier faith? Or is it because this story is presenting a notion that there exists a bloodline steming from Jesus to present day?

I'm Catholic and this movie isn't going to convert me to another religion (bad or worse) and besides I like Tom Hanks, the only movie I didn't like him in was "Vanities of the Bonfire"? or whatever it was called, that movie *STUNK*!

 

[Mooseman]

I read the book and was throughly unimpressed. The twists and turns were not setup at all and the clues, reasoning and character development were haphazard.
Although I like Ron Howard as a director, I don't care for Tom Hanks in anything since his first movies (splash, Big).
This will be a movie I watch when someone buys or rents the DVD and lends it to me.

 

[turgy22]

Hehe... I was actually thinking about starting a thread on the movie myself. I haven't read the book (and probably never will) and won't go out of my way to see the movie. But it has nothing to do with the religious themes presented as much as it has to do with my belief that the movie will simply not be very good.

As far as the uproar over the whole thing, I just don't get it. I'll attribute it to the general stupidity of people these days, but I'm amazed so many people don't understand that the book is a work of FICTION. If anyone has so little faith that a work of fiction can cause them to question their beliefs, then they have some serious issues that protesting the movie will not solve. My mom is about as devout a Catholic as I've ever met and she read and enjoyed the book. Maybe she'll see the movie, but I'm not sure. But the point it, she knows that the book and movie are for entertainment. They're not based on scientific studies or archaelogical digs or anything else. Anyone who has a serious problem with the movie should also be out protesting movies like Jurassic Park (Stop bringing dinosaurs back from extinction!) and Dumbo (Stop teaching our children that elephant's can't fly!).

My point it, the only problem anyone should have with this movie is if it sucks and they think they should get their money back.

 

[hrothmar]

Or could it just be that the church is getting some attention from the media through protesting?
The whole world may think that they're idiots, but it's still media attention and they get to be on tv (and poison our collective unconsciousness).

 

[Ransac]

I went and saw it on Friday night. True, it's not a GREAT movie, but I thought it was a good movie. And so far, there are only two types of people I've talked to that have hated it: the religious crowd that still believes that Dan Brown is trying to pawn this off as truth (which he's NOT, as he's merely an author that wrote a very successful book) and the heavy bookin reading crowd that didn't believe that the movie was as exciting as the book.

I didn't read the book (not because I chose not to, just because I haven't taken the time to) and I thought it was a cool movie. Kinda like "National Treasure" with religious backgrounds instead of governmental backgrounds. I really like Tom Hanks as an actor and thought he did a standard Tom Hanks performance (which is good).

I think it's amazing that the religious crowd hates this movie/book but loved "Passion of the Christ", which was 3 hours of blood and violence. No, I'm not anti-religious as I am Catholic. But, I can recognize "entertainment" from "religious uprising."

However, Tom Hanks is NOT Chuck Norris.


Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[Spiderman]

I would like to see the movie and read the book, in no particular order.

From what I understand, people have a problem with the movie because it portrays the Catholic Church in a negative light, and/or that it doesn't adhere to Church doctrine (Jesus marrying, the Church resorting to murder to cover up, etc). It's not an exact parallel, but it's the closest the West has to the Islam cartoon furor a couple of months ago (and could still be going on, but it's not front page anymore). It makes me wonder if the same people who are protesting the movie/book also supported their Islamic counterparts or derided them for protesting.

 

[Killer Joe]

How likely is it that Jesus got married? Was this customary of the men in those days? Is it even REMOTELY possible he got married? Or did the "Wild Thing"?

I'm sure it is. Especially if we're made in his likeness.

 

[EricBess]

There are actually some very good reasons to believe the Christ may have married. However, the #1 thing here is that, as turgy says, the people in a uproar have lost sight of the fact that this is a work of fiction.

I think part of the problem stems from a statement at the first of the book. Dan Brown makes it clear that certain elements of the book are true, including the existance of the Opus Dei, the manner in which certain rituals have been historically performed, and things such as that. Certain people take this to mean that he's claiming everything in his book is based on fact. He never says that Christ having children is based on fact, nor does he really posit that as anything other than fiction.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I enjoyed the book. I prefered Deception Point, another of his books, wasn't terribly impressed with Digital Fortress (though it's acceptable) and though Angels and Demons didn't build suspence very well. In all, Di Vinci code is his second best book, in my opinion, and any of them are worth the read.

 

[BigBlue]

I have read the book - and Angels & Demons which also deals with the church - but from a different angle and isn't really anti-catholic at all. It is about the Illuminati taking over the church. I guess I'm a simpleton in some regards because I can enjoy books/movies even while I do recognize their failings... they are both works of "historical" fiction which interlace fact with fiction. Someone tried to get me to read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." but I couldn't get into it. If anyone out there likes this genre - I propose they read "The Eight". It was written by Katherine Neville. It is about a powerful chess set owned and used by Charlemagne. I think it is a much better novel than any of Dan Browns. I also think it would make a very interesting movie - though it would most certainly be ruined by Hollywood.

But I digress... back to the topic at hand...

Neither book imho is "Anti-Catholic" per se... they both make statements about the church as an important organization historically which has a bias towards it's religion and has bent or obscured truths to meet their ends. I believe this could be true... I mean, what organization in the world doesn't try to make things appear better for themselves? Especially ones as old as the Catholic Church? Does that mean I believe that Jesus Christ had a relationship which bore children and the church knew about it and covered it up? no... I don't know that one way or the other. But, I believe if they did know that, it isn't implausible to think they'd do their best to cover it up... They have idolized Jesus Christ as a direct descendant of their God. To make him mortal detracts from that image... because they think people wouldn't accept him as a lord in that case... (whether or not they could is an entirely different issue)...

Now I will digress go on... but be warned that this is my opinion/philosophy...

I do not believe in an external omnipotent, omniscient benevolent being. I do not believe "He" immaculately concieved a child on Earth in order to spread his word.

I do believe that people "know" what is right & wrong. They know it as instinct. I do not believe we are inherently evil as the church would lead us to believe. Why? I'm often asked in religious debate... Why would we "know" it is evil to kill... I say because if we "knew" otherwise we'd long since have extinguished ourselves. I accept this as someone who believes in evolution. Evolution is a belief taken on faith -albeit with some scientific evidence. I also accept that at some point, there was a creation - whether it was in 6 days or in a solitary instant when of the Big Bang doesn't matter... there was a creation - or... quite possibly... nothing exists and we are only kidding ourselves in the belief that we think therefore we are... I would say we certainly think... but we could be non-corporeal beings who believe in our reality... but that doesn't make it real for certain. In philosophy as with life - truth is in the mind of the beholder.

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread about a movie & a book...

EB - I liked digital fortress... I never could get into deception point somehow... I don't know why it didn't grab me the way the others did. I think I probably like Digital fortress because I am in IT... What I really liked about each of those books was that they take place within the span of a few days or hours... that "real" time aspect is compelling... I read A&D after DC though... and I thought I may have done better if I'd read them in order - at least to get more of who/what Langdon is.

 

[DarthFerret]

To me it is very simple. Look in your local bookstore. Where is the DaVinci Code located? (Other than at the front because of its popularity right now?) It is in the fiction section. Period, end of story.

 

[HOUTS]

Great Book, "O.K" movie.

 

[Killer Joe]

To me it is very simple. Look in your local bookstore. Where is the DaVinci Code located? (Other than at the front because of its popularity right now?) It is in the fiction section. Period, end of story.

Okay, I agree; it's fiction. Then WHY are so many folks upset? Will they be upset when the remake of "The Omen" comes out on 6-6-06?

 

[EricBess]

I think the problem lies in the fact that, while it is fiction, the underlying story behind it is also plausible.

I might be going out on a limb here, but I think that the people who are the most upset by it in general are people who aren't as comfortable with their faith as they wish they were.

 

[turgy22]

Will they be upset when the remake of "The Omen" comes out on 6-6-06?

I know I will be. You can't beat the original!

However, I think the new one has promise. From what I've seen in the previews, it's a straight-up remake. I was worried it might be another crappy sequel. Two great roles should be Mia Farrow as Mrs. Baylock and Peter Postlethwaithe as Fr. Brennan. Everything beyond that, I don't know what to expect. Liev Schreiber has never been in a good movie. Julia Stiles is one of the less annoying pretty young actresses, but she's still an annoying pretty young actress. And the director, John Moore, hasn't done any films I'm familiar with (except Flight of the Phoenix, which was another remake). There's also some new roles added, including a fictional pope, that really have me worried.

Anyway, that's a movie I'm planning to see, and if it brings down the original like the sequels did, then I'll be pretty upset.

 

[Nightstalkers]

Quite frankly I feel that this is another debate of "this offends me, so I think nobody should be able to see it" bullcrap that they keep going on and on with about video games.

 

[Oversoul]

I thought the book was decent and quite entertaining (albeit trite and awkward in a few places). Two months ago, I wouldn't have cared to see the movie, but the smear campaign actually makes me want to see it a lot.

The thing that stands out to me is that even though I know many people were reading the book in 2004 (and last year for that matter--I didn't read it until the beginning of this year), NO ONE was complaining about it. I'm sure some people didn't like it, but there were no protests. The book has been around for over two years and all I ever heard about it was that it was well-written or that it was overrated (it's probably both, but my point is that people commented on the quality of the book, not whether or not it was unfair to any particular religious organization.

But then the MOVIE comes along and all of the sudden there is a problem. It's sad to see just how much more most people care about movies than books.

 

[DarthFerret]

If it is just a debate caused by the whole, "It offends me, therefore I want no one to see it" then can we use the same thing about anything else? The Pentacostal religion offends me because they are so fake, the Catholic Church offends me because they keep standing then sitting then kneeling then standing....enough to make Jane Fonda proud. What if I become offended because a Mexican Flag is flown in America (see the Border Laws thread).

It is just a case of immaturity and intollerance that should not be tolerated!

(Yes I came up with that all by myself!)

 

[Spiderman]

Actually, I heard the Church and groups had a problem with the book too when it came back. The movie has just brought it all back in the limelight. And like the initial book furor, it'll pass...

 

[Oversoul]

Actually, I heard the Church and groups had a problem with the book too when it came back. The movie has just brought it all back in the limelight. And like the initial book furor, it'll pass...

Oh, I'm sure there was at least some hostility toward the book (for the reasons already cited and not because of any cheesy character development or the lackluster ending--there's a difference between giving a book a bad review and claiming that it attacks your religion or whatnot), but I never actually saw any of it myself, and this was with an unusually popular book. But once the movie was about to come out, it all over the place. Surely it was an order of magnitude greater than anything that happened with the book.

Not that this is anything unique to "The Da Vinci Code." I think it's only the latest example.

 

[Spiderman]

Ah, I took your original post as categorically stating that there were no protests or complaints period, as opposed to you seeing them.