Posted on 05/11/2006 2:24:48 PM PDT by freakboy
The row over the imminent release of the Da Vinci Code film grew today when star Tom Hanks hit out at its Catholic critics.
Cardinals, speaking with the authorisation of the Vatican, have called for the Hollywood version of Dan Brown's bestselling novel to be boycotted.
They say the theme of the film - that Jesus Christ had children with Mary Magdalene and that hardline Catholic movement Opus Dei covered up his secret life - is highly blasphemous.
But Oscar-winner Hanks said objectors to The Da Vinci Code are taking the film too seriously, telling the Evening Standard: "We always knew there would be a segment of society that would not want this movie to be shown.
"But the story we tell is loaded with all sorts of hooey and fun kind of scavenger-hunt-type nonsense.
"If you are going to take any sort of movie at face value, particularly a huge-budget motion picture like this, you'd be making a very big mistake.
"It's a damn good story and a lot of fun... all it is is dialogue. That never hurts."
The Da Vinci Code book has sold more than 40 million copies since it was published in 2003. The film, released by Sony Pictures division Columbia Pictures, is set to be one of the year's most successful when it is released worldwide on 19 May.
As well as Hanks, it stars Audrey Tautou and Sir Ian McKellen and is directed by Oscar winner Ron Howard.
The Da Vinci Code receives its world premiere at the Cannes Film Festival next Wednesday.
Calls for Christians to boycott it have been led by Archbishop Angelo Amato, the number two official in the Vatican doctrinal office, which was headed by Pope Benedict until his election last year.
Amato described the novel as "stridently anti-Christian" and called for believers to "reject the lies and gratuitous defamation" in the book.
He added: "If such lies and errors had been directed at the Koran and Holocaust they would have justly provoked a world uprising.
"Instead, if they are directed against the church and Christians, they remain unpunished. I hope you will boycott the film."
Cardinal Francis Arinze, a Nigerian tipped to be Pope last year, went even further.
He said: "Christians must not just sit back and say it is enough for us to forgive and forget. Sometimes it is our duty to do something practical.
"Some know legal means which can be taken in order to get the other person to respect the rights of others."
The Catholic church here is taking a more relaxed line, arguing that in the face of the film's blockbuster appeal, calling for a boycott would be pointless.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, head of the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales, told the Jonathan Dimbleby programme on ITV1 on Sunday: "I think it's a harmless thriller. If people want to read it they can and people who read it should realise it is fiction."
But some prominent UK Catholics favour a harder stance. Piers Paul Read, himself a best-selling novelist, said:
"I am for the boycott. I don't think Catholics should put money into the pockets of people who have invented lies about the church."
Another eminent Catholic, socialite Claus Von Bülow, said: "I am not going to see The Da Vinci Code. This has nothing to do with its historical claims but because I found the book unreadable."
Hey Hanks!
STFU.
PEople can decide what they want to see and have a perfect right to not see davinci code if they wish.
As for fiction, Hanks should probably tell his friend Dan Brown who doesn't think it is fiction and has marketed his book as fact.
Liberal jerks would probably make the davinci code compulsory viewing at schools etc in the name of diversity.
True...and imagine if a movie was released that showed FDR to be a sworn commie, or JFK to be a racist, or Thurgood Marshall to have been a propped up phony, or Bubba to have been a submissive homo.
The movie, obviously, is fiction. But, I challenge everyone to ask 10 people you know or interact with if they think 'The Code' has any basis in truth...you may be very suprised what people believe out there...
Whether Brown believes this or not, the story is made to seem true. WIthout a disclaimer that none of this is intended to be looked at as true, and then specific things listed that are made up, a lot of people can't tell the difference. It's not like Spiderman where we know that certain things are impossible and therefore FALSE.
3rd paragraph: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."
You should have indicated why you think it's laughable, but since you didn't, I'll explain why I think so too.
There is a contingent here on this forum that thinks that at least this claim is legitimate or can be considered legitimate. Do I have to bring up the old example of Kurosawa's Rashomon? (I mean this is freshman college stuff.) OK, if you think Brown's declaration can be taken at face value, describe to me, let's say, the Lincoln Monument in D.C. I'll then describe it to you. Our descriptions will differ, won't they. Which one is accurate? That depends on the meaning of "is", doesn't it. That's why such a declaration, the likes of which I for one haven't seen in any literary work, is laughable to this cat.
Less time at the Vatican worrying about a fictional movie and more time worrying about priests molesting young boys.
nicely done
thank you for "extending and revising" my remarks.
And you're right, I should have spelled out why it was laughable.
I got it second hand from a friend who attended that Mass, and she said the Monsignor had no problem with the movie. He said it was fiction, and the guy who wrote the book and all the others involved were just making a living like the rest of us.
The good Monsignor told his parishioners if they wanted to see it, to go ahead and be entertained.
sw
chirp
chirp
crickets...
The Oliver Stone movie was based on a novel "Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy" by Jim Garrison.
Mr. Stone's movie closely followed the novel.
"But the story we tell is loaded with all sorts of hooey and fun kind of scavenger-hunt-type nonsense.
"If you are going to take any sort of movie at face value, particularly a huge-budget motion picture like this, you'd be making a very big mistake.
"It's a damn good story and a lot of fun... all it is is dialogue. That never hurts."
There is so much hypocrisy in his statement, as other posters have already noted. He would never downplay the seriousness of a movie that skewered a liberal cause. He would be up-in-arms about it, just like all the other Hollywood lefties. But pushing blasphemy of Christianity? Hey, don't sweat it; it's just a movie.
The real problem that I see is that far too many people actually do believe what they see on TV or in the movies. How many people believed Fahrenheit 911? How many people, especially young people, believe TV docudramas? Most people get their theology in snippets that they have heard from Oprah, movies, friends, etc. They have never thought through what they actually believe and so they are very susceptible to these kinds of false teachings. That's why 22% of Alberta thinks it's true. It's sad.
When is Tommy going to star in the Satanic Verses?
Yea but it's Canada! Who cares....
It hurts to think how many fools will walk away from this movie and think it's the truth for the rest of their lives. Muslims will probably go in droves to see "the hooey".
That's the problem. Somebody with some claim to authority says something -- no matter how illogical or unfounded -- and somebody accepts it at face value.
Jesus never went to India. If you believe that he did you have to reject a good bit of the Bible (which is the source of what we know about Him) then assume he was an explorer akin to Marco Polo.
After considering the matter, you can believe just one of two things about Him -- that He is God or a madman. I'm certain beyond any doubt that He is the former.
Chuck Norris
Might as well quite while you're ahead.
FWIW I was never taught he was God only the son of God. Part of the Deity - yes he may be a god but not God.
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.