Posted on 05/17/2006 5:54:17 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
May 17, 2006
If the Da Vinci Code was already feeding the flames of controversy with its challenge to the basic tenets of Christianity, actor Ian McKellen managed to throw a refinery tank's worth of gasoline on the fire on this morning's Today show, asserting that the Bible should carry a disclaimer saying that it is "fiction."
Matt Lauer, on his second day "On The Road With The Code," was in Cannes for the film festival, where the Code will have its debut. It has already been screened to some critics, who have given it decidedly mixed reviews.
As I reported here yesterday, NBC reporter Melissa Stark timidly dipped a toe in the sea of controversy when yesterday she interviewed Code director Ron Howard, asking how he reacted to the controversy the movie has created . . . for the Church! Sounding more like the Delphic oracle than a Hollywood director, Howard offered up some ambiguous prose about it being healthy thing for people to engage their beliefs.
Lauer took the bull of controversy more directly by the horns when he interviewed the cast and director Howard today. Said Lauer:
"There have been calls from some religious groups, they wanted a disclaimer at the beginning of this movie saying it is fiction because one of the themes in the book really knocks Christianity right on its ear, if Christ survived the crucifixion, he did not die for our sins and therefore was not resurrected. What I'm saying is, people wanted this to say 'fiction, fiction, fiction'. How would you all have felt if there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie? Would it have been okay with you?"
There was a pause, and then famed British actor Ian McKellen [Gandalf of Lord of the Rings], piped up:
"Well, I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction. I mean, walking on water, it takes an act of faith. And I have faith in this movie. Not that it's true, not that it's factual, but that it's a jolly good story. And I think audiences are clever enough and bright enough to separate out fact and fiction, and discuss the thing after they've seen it."
With the camera focused on McKellen, one could hear a distinctly nervous laugh in the background, seeming to come from either actor Tom Hanks or director Howard. McKellen's stunning bit of blasphemy is likely to test the adage that all publicity is good publicity.
Finkelstein, recently a guest on the Lars Larson Show, lives in the liberal haven of Ithaca, NY, where he hosts the award-winning public-access TV show 'Right Angle'. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net
What does it do to "public civility" when a major studio brings out a movie based on a book, both of which allege that a (real) religion is based on an abject lie and that a (real) organization, part of that religion, goes around the world killing people who might reveal the "truth"?
Do you think slander and lies on a massive scale for profit contributes to "public civility"?
IMO, if people want more "public civility," they can maybe start by not telling vicious, ugly lies about others, hmmm?
The controversial summer blockbuster made from the best-selling book? This isn't Pauly Shore's next movie.
Why can't atheists conspire if they are accusing the Christians of doing so?
So anyone involved in this film is an atheist? That's it, that's the ticket.
Is there anything about "the Da Vinci Code" to prove all religions are false?
Or could the Islamic cult use the seeds of doubt ("Christ was just a man, He was never crucified, etc.") to step in and say "this is what we've said all along, get on the RIGHT path and become muslim..."?
After the break-up comes the "rebound".
Definitely not, less then Pippin.
The big guy upstairs says he's wrong
Really? Did he issue a statement on McKellan's comments that I missed?
The film hasn't opened yet. It is EXPECTED to be a big blockbuster but then so was Ishtar.
The Swift Boat Veterans had a "controversial best-seller" too. I wouldn't expect a movie based on it to outsell Star Wars.
So anyone involved in this film is an atheist?
Ian is. The author is certainly opposed to Christianity.
I don't claim that everyone involved in this film is atheist. Would you claim that everyone involved in the production/promotion of The Passion was a Christian, there is no doubt that film had an agenda too.
I do question those who find it "worthy" ro promote this film over others (especially in light of the weak reviews).
I'm glad I only blew $2 to see it in the theater.
Slander on a massive scale is punishable by massive fines - as it should be.
There are huge numbers of religious people in this country. They certainly have the funds to mount a real lawsuit. I know this is costly, time-consuming, irritating. I don't know any other way. Only by mounting such an action, will the distinctions between free-speech and slander by clarified.
I know I have the right to publicly dispute any and all claims made by the Bible without fear of prosecution. I know I don't have the right to claim that a religious organization (or anyone) goes around killing people unless I can prove it.
It already IS a present reality, but you don't recognize it in it's secular form. When Trent Lott utters his blasphemous political opinion by liberal's standards or when some poor schmuck uses the word niggardly accurately there is Hell To Pay, and it ain't coming from the Christians.
"He's also a militant homosexual...."
"Didn't know that."
Watch the first X-men and whenever the script talks about "differeces" and "people different from normal people" just replace that with their true underling message to accept homosexuallity.
In particular in the scene when the mother asks her "closeted" x-man son "to just tried to act "normal"
Although I disagree wholeheartedly with the content, the cinematography is a case study in propaganda filming. Lighting, angles, etc. are all used to create a sense of majesty even as people are being stripped of their rights, and so effectively so, that they clamored for more.
The same techniques are used by propagandists today, from TV news to Hollywood (and other) movies.
It is one of those films that you can only praise in the proper context as too many people will automatically jump to the conclusion that you're a nazi (Joe are you now or have you ever been a nazi?).
No. I have never been a nazi, and have no desire or inclination to be one.
As abhorrent as the nazis were they did leave items of historical significance. That film is one of them.
And those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. I am afraid we have reached the point where segments of our society are susceptible to that sort of programming, regardless of the 'message' behind it. Knowledge of and vigillance against those techniques is the best defense.
It's called political correctness.
I hate it...and do everything I can to ridicule it, curse it, expose it as one of the great dangers to our society.
There are ALWAYS such segments. That's the tough part, the part which separates the men from the boys.
Jesus did not say one word about homosexuality. He said plenty about greed, about hypocrisy and especially about judging others - but absolutely nothing about homosexuality.
I'd be a lot more worried about "Judge not lest ye be judged" than I would about something he didn't even see fit to mention.
Well badly cooked/spoiled shellfish tends to be toxic since they are bottom feeders. At this particular moment in history God was on to something.
I'll grant you that point - it makes sense. The ban about homosexuality made sense at the time too, since nomadic & agricultural societies needed to have as many children as possible. The one I have trouble grasping is the ban against wearing cloth made out of more than one material. Yes - according to the Bible, if you wear a cotton/polyester blend you are an abomination before God.
Again - many people seem to pick and choose which sins THEY think are important, while totally ignoring those THEY think are unimportant.
Nope, that's not the piece.
Yeah, but what about the Koran, Ian?
So.....he MIGHT not be the most unbiased authority on the Bible.....
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.