Ron Howard: No 'Da Vinci Code' Disclaimer

NewsMax ^ | 5/12/06 | NewsMax

[California Patriot]

To put a disclaimer on this film would defeat Hollywood's intention.

[billbears]

Catholic League President Bill Donohue

Does Bill Donahue have anything to do besides complain? It is a movie and it is fiction.

[RobbyS]

"We always knew there would be a segment of society that would not want this movie to be shown," he said.

[Frank Sheed]

>>> Hell, I know people that thought that "The Bridges of Madison County" was a true story.<<<

I saw a story today that stated that one-third of all Canadians polled who read the Da Vinci Code thought it was true. The blogger Amy Wellborn gives lectures debunking the book. She says that she still gets long lines of people AFTER the presentation who argue that she is wrong and the book is true. Very akin to the movie "JFK" in which fiction was salted with an occasional truth.

[b9]

Have you even read it?

[RobbyS]

Yes, dear.

[Frank Sheed]

Sorry I can't find the other story I saw on Hanks today. To paraphrase, Hanks said he hoped that people would have altercations or "fistfights" (my recollection) in the lobby over the film. The reason, I presume, is that controversy is good box office.

[virgil]

Dan Brown's book is a work of disinformation. For instance, at the very beginning he states "FACT: All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate" It takes the people who are offended to point out that much of the significance he attributes to the symbolism around the architecture are fiction. Somebody reading through the book probably won't stop to think about which parts are truth and which parts are fiction. He confuses truth (they are half-truths at best) and fiction and makes it hard to discern. The book is trash and a smear against the Catholic faith, but it's just entertainment, doncha know? </sarcasm>

[b9]

It's sheer twaddle.

[Homer1]

Eeeks! It's fiction? I never would have known....

[Frank Sheed]

TOM HANKS poked fun at the religious controversy surrounding his new film THE DA VINCI CODE by facing criticism from mock priests, cardinals, nuns, Popes and even JESUS CHRIST as he guest hosted US comedy show SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE (06MAY06). The Oscar winner's new movie, which is adapted from DAN BROWN's controversial novel of the same name, has upset Catholic Church officials because it questions longstanding beliefs about Christ and an alleged bloodline. But Hanks, who insists the film and the debate it will spark will actually help to swell church numbers, is taking the criticism in his stride. Hosting Saturday Night Live for the eighth time, Hanks opened the show by taking questions from regular cast members dressed as clergymen and clergywomen - and Jesus himself. Comedian CHRIS PARNELL took on the guise of a cardinal and asked the actor, "I was wondering when you were making the film and you were meeting with the producers and writers and the director, in all that creative process, did you ever wonder what it would feel like to burn for eternity in hell?" The movie star feigned concern, and insisted director RON HOWARD was fully responsible for the film and its message. He stated, "When you come right down to it, it really is the director that makes all the decisions and that would be Ron Howard, the guy from HAPPY DAYS." But the highlight of the skit came when another show regular, JASON SUDEIKIS, dressed up as a comedic Jesus. He quipped, "Mr Hanks, I saw your film and I just want you to know that I forgive you." But when the actor asked if he'd actually seen all of The Da Vinci Code, Sudeikis' Jesus joked, "I haven't seen that. I was forgiving you for making THE TERMINAL... I saw that on an airplane and people were still walking out."

I'd say this sums it up pretty well... I'm waiting for the Leftist lampoon versions of some other religions next! There are so many to choose from!

[JasonC]

It is a very old heresy. We can trace when it started, over 800 years ago. The modern version cares mostly about the feminist and sexuality angle, but in the original that wasn't the main point. Instead it was an attempt to ground French royal exceptionalism against papal claims, without simply subscribing to a dominance of secular authority or of all kings (which would benefit e.g. German emperors too much).

It belongs to the pre-history of Gallicanism and to the wide variety of heresies that sprung up in southern France around the time of the divided papacy (popes in Avignon under French control, other claimants in Rome, etc). There is no reality to it, going back to truly biblical times. But the historical existence of such a heresy provides Brown all the cultural references he might require - though he stretches things ridiculously, conflates entirely separate heretical views, etc.

[RobbyS]

Of course it is, but when one is dealing with a generation that takes wiitchcraft seriously, anyone who can tell a good story can sell anything. He's of the school of P.T. Barnum.

[RobbyS]

Well, that sinks Hanks for me. Not that it matters much, but I will never again look at anything he does.

[b9]

Enjoy your counter-twaddle.
I trust Truth.

[RobbyS]

I trust Truth

So do I but the Father of Lies has a pretty good track record in history.

[MeanWestTexan]

Yes, he was fictional.

[Old Professer]

I think Opie has been digging around in his old toy box and found that damned slingshot again.

[SaintDismas]

Well, you can put Hanks on my list of no see no more too. And thats kinda sad for me, cause I really used to like him. Just another Hollywood asswipe now.

[Borges]

Munich shouldn't stop you from enjoying BOB mainly because it wasn't remotely the 'love letter to the Pal Terrorists' that people who didn't see it claimed it was.