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.
One person like you might go see it.
Others may read about it and decide not to because of the subject matter.
No, that would be War Of The Worlds.
One could hardly call discussions about a movie "mouth foaming."
I've already read the script. It's entertaining, but still fiction.
"movies have a huge impact on our views, values and behavior."
Really? Let me think about that, in terms of films I've seen many times over the years....
I've never melted a witch by splashing a bucket of water on her.
I've never wanted to leave my husband for an exciting man I knew in Paris before the war.
I've never repeatedly married inappropriate men while Atlanta burned around me.
I've never taken a lover and then tried to get him to murder my husband for me.
I never told my husband I wanted to see him die, then got my wish while he struggled to go up a flight of stairs for the heart medication I wouldn't fetch for him.
There, solve those riddles. :)
There are lots of nasty characters and plot lines in films that are wildly entertaining, but most people know the films aren't instructional documentaries.
Freedom of choice, gotta love it. :)
Beyond knowing the movie is false...hey it's a movie...I won't see it because of National Treasure.
In that movie, I thought it was cool to see the treasure hunting, but when they reduced the Declaration of Independence to nothing more than a treasure map, I was repulsed.
In NT, I had hoped there would be a message that our real national treasure is the freedoms we have. Instead, it was just a guy finding a pot of gold, and subverting our laws to do it.
I suspect DC to be similar in that great treasures are relegated to providing clues and nothing more.
I suspect the reason it is getting so much press is because it casts a bad light on Catholicism. Casting that light doesn't affect me directly as I am Baptist. It does however cause a bad light to be reflected on Christianity as a whole.
It brings the idea that Christianity is nothing but a big cover up, to a generation that is getting increasingly more difficult to reach past their skepticism and cynicism.
Actually, I think the backlash will help the Church more than the movie will hurt it. Just go to the local bookstore and you will see a cottage industry of Christian books "Debunking the Da Vinci Code." Also, my church and others I am aware of are racking up big attendence increases at bible study classes by offering classes "Debunking the Da Vinci Code". I suspect this is true in many Churches across the country. I haven't seen an issue stimulate Church involvement like this for a long time. God works in mysterious ways.
Did you know that if you re-arrange the letters DA VINCI CODE you spell: DAVID CLOUD IS A SHADOW-CHASING LOON ?
Perhaps not, but this is a fictional movie, not a documentary. Pity on those who cannot tell the difference.
Besides, even if it is a great movie, how do you feel about financing the radical left within our nation?
I don't believe that Ron Howard and Tom Hanks are "the radical left."
Anyway, feel free to take a stab at the riddle. It's every bit as good as any in the story under discussion (IMHO).
Why would I do that? I believe in the Biblical model of divinity, not Dan Brown's.
Good stories do contain "evil". The Bible has many evil characters. Without an antagonist you don't have a story.
Moral stories acknowledge that evil is evil. They do not portrait evil as good and good as evil.
Moral stories do not involve the actual doing of evil. When someone is murdered in a movie, it is a stunt. If someone was actually killed to make the movie, it would be immoral.
When people blaspheme God and Jesus in movies, they are not merely representing or depicting the idea for a story, they are actually committing evil.
If this story were to debunk the blasphemous claims asserted by its characters, it would not be morally reprehensible. As it stands, it gives credence to those claims.
No offense, but hasn't that always been the way?
Actually, I mean The Way.
You are very, very close even without any additional clues.
I had prepared 3 clues, but your partial answer would have already used them all.
So here is a little help: the solution is a question, and "So" is not one of the words.
Be sure to tell that to those who are already citing it as evidence of the "Christian conspiracy." I've met them already.
You know, there's a reason the blatantly biased MSM was able to maintain so much power and influence for several decades.
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.