Posted on 05/12/2006 2:12:02 PM PDT by wagglebee
"Da Vinci Code” director Ron Howard has said there would be no disclaimer in the film labeling it as a work of fiction – and Catholic League President Bill Donohue is deeply disturbed by Howard’s stance.
"The book which the film is based on begins with three ‘facts,’ all of which are malicious lies, yet Ron Howard says no disclaimer is needed because ‘this is a work of fiction,’” Donahue said in a statement. "He is disingenuous.”
As Donahue points out, the following got a disclaimer in a fictionalized TV show or film:
Asians: "Year of the Dragon”
Blacks: "Birth of a Nation”
Gays: "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back”
Jews: "Merchant of Venice”
Mormons: "Big Love”
Muslims: "True Lies”
Native Americans: "Pocahontas II”
Nearsighted: "Mr. Magoo”
Wolves: "White Fang”
Donahue declares: "That’s right — even wolves merited a disclaimer. Disney put a disclaimer in ‘White Fang’ saying there is no evidence of a healthy pack of wolves attacking a human in North America.
"Forget about wolves. If Howard were as sensitive to Catholics as those responsible for ‘La Vita E Bella’ were to Jews, he would have acceded to our request to inject a disclaimer. That 1998 film — a dark comedy about the Holocaust — opened with a voice-over saying it is a fable. So is ‘The Da Vinci Code.’”
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times on Sunday, Howard rejected calls for a disclaimer, stating: "This is a work of fiction that presents a set of characters that are affected by these conspiracy theories and ideas. Those characters in this work of fiction act and react on that premise.
"It’s not history. To start with a disclaimer … spy thrillers don’t start off with disclaimers.”
However, in the book the movie is based on, author Dan Brown claims on the first page that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate,” indicating the book is based on historical fact.
Donahue said in his statement: "John Calley, a co-producer of ‘The Da Vinci Code,’ has admitted that the film is anti-Catholic.
"Apparently, Ron Howard is more of a gambler than I thought. Had he done what other directors have done before him and put in a disclaimer, the risks to his reputation would have been minimal. Now it’s show time for Mr. Howard, and not just his movie.”
To put a disclaimer on this film would defeat Hollywood's intention.
Does Bill Donahue have anything to do besides complain? It is a movie and it is fiction.
>>> 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.
Have you even read it?
Yes, dear.
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.
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>
It's sheer twaddle.
Eeeks! It's fiction? I never would have known....
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!
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.
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.
Well, that sinks Hanks for me. Not that it matters much, but I will never again look at anything he does.
Enjoy your counter-twaddle.
I trust Truth.
So do I but the Father of Lies has a pretty good track record in history.
Yes, he was fictional.
I think Opie has been digging around in his old toy box and found that damned slingshot again.
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.
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.
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.