Posted on 05/15/2006 7:35:21 AM PDT by unlearner
Everyone likes a good riddle. It's human nature to want to find meaning, solve problems, and seek out purposeful solutions. Dan Brown capitalized on this by writing the best selling novel, "The Da Vinci Code".
Speaking of which, the title of my post is a riddle: WOE ON RON HOWARD, T. HANKS' D.C. FIB. By rearranging the letters of the title, you can find a meaningful question posed about this novel and film. The solution is in the context of the story, as the answer resembles a major puzzle within it.
If it is not obvious at this point that T. HANKS is for Tom Hanks (not "thanks") and D.C. is for Da Vinci Code (not the US capitol), you may want to sit this one out and let someone else solve the riddle. Tom Hanks plays the main character in the upcoming movie directed by Ron Howard and adapted from the Dan Brown novel. (The official movie website is at http://www.sodarktheconofman.com, using a phrase taken from the book.)
The film and the book are a big fib. That is, they are a lie. "Yes", some object, "but they are fiction. They are not meant to be taken literally." Not quite. The story is intertwined with historical fact and historical fiction. Leonardo Da Vinci was a real person. So was Jesus. So was Mary Magdelene.
The story extends poetic license to depicting these characters in what many would consider a slanderous light. It goes beyond this to the point of denigrating biblical doctrines and substituting fairy tales in their place.
If Jesus fled persecution and had children by Mary, then the most essential doctrines of Christianity are false: the atoning death of Christ on the cross, the resurrection, the spiritual body of Christ (i.e. the Church - Christ's bride). Mr. Brown fails to see that a relationship with Mary would make Jesus an adulterer, and thus a hypocrite, since He spoke against adultery.
The movie is to be released May 19, 2006- just in time to celebrate the aniversary of legalized homosexual marriages. ("Legalized" by judicial edict, not legislation, and only in Massachusettes.) Do I exagerate? I do not know if this is intentional, but of course Tom Hanks has been a champion of liberal causes such as homosexual rights, as is demonstrated by the Academy Award winning propoganda piece, Philadelphia. (I would be amiss not to point out Mr. Hanks also has been a champion of some conservative causes as well- such as supporting our troops.) Co-star, Ian McKellan, is a militant homosexual activist who, while being interviewed, has bragged that he likes to vandalize Gideon Bibles which have been freely donated to hotels. I wonder if the movie will throw in the idea that some famous historical figures may have been homosexual.
Anyway, you can count me out for being one of the crowd to go see this movie when it opens. By the way, I read the book for free using my local library. I did not want any of my money to go to its author or publisher. If I ever watch the film, I will wait for a free coupon from RedBox or until my library has a copy. May I suggest to those conservatives who cannot wait for the DVD, don't go see The Da Vinci Code on opening day. Wait as long as possible. The longer you wait, the less money goes to those who made and distributed it. And they are liberal. This movie is the liberal answer to The Passion of the Christ.
It should come as no surprise. Most Hollywood movies contain many references to Jesus. Hollywood has no problem making Jesus a major subject matter within its films, as long as those references are limited to things such as using His name like a four-letter filth word. This happens, on average, several times in a typical Hollywood film. Yet movies like The Passion of the Christ, which attempts to portray the actual events surrounding Christ's death, are unacceptable to the liberal elite in Hollywood. A similar protest, albeit slightly quieter, was made against Chronicles of Narnia which contains what some interpret as allegorical references to Christ.
Here's my take on Dan Brown's novel under discussion. Aside from the callous insult against biblical Christianity as well as special insults reserved for Catholics, the story is fairly well told. Not amazing, but OK. Some parts are weak. When we are awkardly informed a major character is allergic to shell fish, it is obvious instantly this is a not-so-subtle setup for his later demise using this plot device. The overall plot is weak, too. The explanations for why these supposed secrets have been protected in a secret society are convoluted. Why are they important enough to preserve but not important enough to tell? Why are the secret group sex rituals necessary? The memories of a girl walking in on her uncle in the middle of one of these rituals is quite over the top. It is just too hard to swallow Brown's take on these things having some sort of intrinsic beauty. To me it is just incestuous and disgusting.
It has already been pointed out, but may be worth repeating, that Brown has his facts so mixed up as to be unrecognizable. Gnostic gospels never gained much foothold in early Christianity because those closest to the actual events were present to refute these errant writings. They were not removed by a Constantine persecution. Brown would transform the legalization of Christianity into the persecution of all desenting views. And what's more, even if the Gnostics were an alternative Christianity, they would never come close to supporting Brown's fascination with "the sacred feminine". Gnostics despised women, the physical, and the sexual. None of this fits.
Ok. That's my two cents worth. But what about the riddle? With a little effort some Freeper is sure to solve it . The way to find the answer should be clear to anyone who is familiar with the riddles in the book. Any takers? I will provide some additional hints if no one is able to solve it.
It's a movie. Like Shrek. I'll see it, and watch it that light.
No need to protect my tender little intellect from fiction.
Interesting websites.
We're redefining marriage. This a new definition for adultery.
BTW, it is only a movie...and one that makes no claim to be anything other than fictional.
If it had been distributed as a documentary, then it would belong in the Michael Moore wing of discredited film-making. As a fictional work, there is a difference.
No problem. The fictional movie about your mother and father is slated for next year.
Not quite: Check Brown's "Facts" page.
THE DA VINCI CODE MYTH
http://wayoflife.org/fbns/davincicode-myth.html
It's a free country. Feel free.
I am not trying to protect your "little intellect". I am trying to stimulate it.
Just because it is a movie doesn't mean it is morally neutral. To the contrary, movies have a huge impact on our views, values and behavior.
I doubt anyone would be so cavalier if the reputation being maligned was their own or someone they loved.
Besides, even if it is a great movie, how do you feel about financing the radical left within our nation?
Anyway, feel free to take a stab at the riddle. It's every bit as good as any in the story under discussion (IMHO).
The more of these things I see, the more likely I am to spend money to go see it. Just to see what everyone is so mouth-foaming about. Otherwise, I'd wait for a slow night on cable to see it. Threads like these are drumming up a lot of business for this film~
Parents Beware: 'Shrek 2' Features Transgenderism And Crossdressing Themes
(That's right -- the same folks
worried about this movie
were afraid of Shrek . . .)
"Though the Da Vinci Code is a novel, it purports to be based upon historical facts. In an introductory note Brown writes that “all descriptions of documents and secret rituals are accurate.” On an ABC News special Jesus, Mary, and Da Vinci (Nov. 3, 2003), Brown said that he believes the book’s thesis. In an interview on Good Morning America that same day he said that if he were to write a nonfiction piece on these things he would change nothing about what he claimed in the novel (Darrell Bock, Breaking the Da Vinci Code, p. 3)."
http://wayoflife.org/fbns/davincicode-myth.html
I would have thought Ron Howard would be more inclined to take an interest in "Opie Deus" ...
Absolutely. Or they wouldn't spend so much money on them.
I saw Shrek and was not "afraid" of it. But it totally sucked to have little kids exposed to themes of homosexuality without a warning.
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.