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.
With a smile on my face, my reply to you is "sucker."
You missed the "Satanic forces" clause of my statement.
Wouldn't be the first time I didn't get my money's worth. Fortunately, there's plenty where that came from. :)
My favorites are a little different, including Bette Davis' great "I'd like to kiss you, but I just washed my hair", and Kathleen Turner's smoky, "You're not very smart, are you? I LIKE that in a man." ;-D
Thank God you are here. Before you came, we were just unenlightened knuckledraggers without your eminence to light the way for us.
Wow!!!!
Better up those meds.
Remember the movie "Jaws"? Many people are still terrified of the ocean as a direct result of that movie. The odds of getting attacked by a shark are about a billion to one, but people were (amazingly) influenced by a **movie**. Imagine that?
Well, it's a full time job, and Lord knows it doesn't pay enough. ;-D
This is a stupid belief.
mark
Ha! Good one.
No. But I would expect them to be at the front of the line!
I never did see "Basic Instinct"; I'm not a Sharon Stone fan, so I pretty much just know about the ice pick and the leg-spreading scene. I agree with you that I'm often in films where there are small children (younger than you describe) and I think, WHAT are they doing here?
I do think that children are the ones more likely to be influenced by film because they don't have the skills to sort out what's being thrown at them. When my husband was nine, and his younger brother was six, their mother dropped them off at the movies so she could have some time to go shopping on her own. The movie was Bette Davis and Joan Crawford in "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" and after the first fifteen minutes, the boys were sitting on the curb out front, waiting for her to come back!
I'm sure you didn't miss out on anything. I'm glad we agree on this level.
If the DVC movie depicts the sex rituals described in the book, then at least we agree it would be harmful to children.
I don't know what will be depicted. I will be surprised if it is very graphic, but I haven't read any reviews by anyone who has seen it.
I'll grant you that.
The Mr just informed me that Lake Michigan was empty of swimmers after the movie came out.
And when have you ever heard of a shark sighting in the Great Lakes?
It has been quite a while since I read DVC, so I can't remember which alternative gospels he mentioned. I am thinking he mentioned the Gospel of Thomas, which is not Gnostic at all, but is sometimes mistakenly considered such because a codex containing it was found at Nag Hammadi. I think I just put that down to Brown's general populist ignorance at the time.
All of the Gnostic sects that had also adopted Hermetic doctrine were libertine to greater and lesser extents. This included the followers of Simon Magus, the Carpocratians, and others. Also, the Sethians (Borborites, Phibionites, etc.) were more or less libertine, depending on how intermixed they were with Valentinians. All of the Sethian writings from Nag Hammadi support this. The Cathars had a system of "perfects" who were required to remain ascetic while the unwashed masses could be as libertine as they chose. The libertines' doctrine was that our spiritual selves are not affected by our material nature, so we cannot be held spiritually responsible for our carnality. Some of the earlier libertine sects also tended to favor Arian beliefs. The earliest Gnostic sects, the Marcionites and the Valentinians, were very definitely ascetic, though.
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.