Da Vinci Code Actor McKellan: Bible as Much "Fiction" as Movie

MRC

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Da Vinci Code actor: Bible as much "fiction" as the movie. In a Wednesday Today session in Cannes, France with actors and producers of the Da Vinci Code movie, Matt Lauer asked about how, given how many want the movie to be clearly labeled "fiction," they would have "felt if there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie? Would it have been okay with you?" Actor Ian McKellen replied: "Well I've often thought that the, the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying, this is fiction. I mean walking on water? I mean 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, I think, I think audiences are clever enough and bright enough to separate out, separate out fact and fiction and discuss the thing when they've seen it." Unfazed by McKellan's slam at the Bible, Lauer moved ahead with his agenda: "Would it have mattered to the rest of you? Would it have bothered you if there had been a disclaimer?"

     The MRC's Geoff Dickens provided this transcript of the relevant portion of the 8am half hour outdoor segment on the May 17 Today:

     Matt Lauer: "Let me ask you all to jump in on this. There have been calls for some religious groups. They wanted a disclaimer at, at the beginning of this movie saying it is fiction because, again, 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. Tom's looking like, 'what?'"
     Tom Hanks: "Was that in the book?"
     Lauer: "But what I'm saying, people wanted us to say, 'fiction, fiction, fiction.' How would you have all felt if there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie? Would it have been okay with you?"
     Sir Ian McKellen: "Well I've often thought that the, the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying, this is fiction. I mean walking on water? I mean 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, I think, I think audiences are clever enough and bright enough to separate out, separate out fact and fiction and discuss the thing when they've seen it."
     Lauer: "Would it have mattered to the rest of you? Would it have bothered you if there had been a disclaimer?"
     Alfred Molina: "The, the movie's job isn't to be true to be real, the movie's job is to be as plausible and as authentic as, as it can be. And like all good fiction it's underpinned by elements that are plausible and authentic and, and, and, and again like all good fiction it makes the, it provokes the audience into asking what if?"
     Ron Howard: "You know and, and, and you know when you do a thriller which this is. This is mystery thriller. It's, it's, you know it's about something unfolding and of course there is a disclaimer. As, as, as in all works of fiction it's on the end of the movie but you wouldn't start off a spy thriller or a, or, or a story about, you know intrigue in the White House by saying this, this couldn't happen. You want the audience to lose themselves in it and then trust the audience they're gonna take what ideas that interest them or not and deal with it later."
     Lauer: "Is, is this a case where if people's faith is shaken by this movie the faith probably wasn't strong enough to begin with?"
     McKellen: "There ya go."
     Lauer: "Is that how you look at it?"
     Molina: "Yeah."

     On the MRC's NewsBusters blog on Wednesday morning, Mark Finkelstein posted an item about McKellan's take on the Bible, to which the MRC's Michelle Humphrey added video: newsbusters.org

     The DrudgeReport.com picked up the item, leading to a big visitor day to NewsBusters, and to ABC's World News Tonight featuring McKellan's comment.

     In a Wednesday World News Tonight story on the controversy surrounding the movie based on a novel, Jake Tapper noted: "Today at the Cannes film festival in France, the creators of the film tried to quell the controversy."
     Tom Hanks: "This is not a documentary. This is not something that is pulled up and says, 'these are the facts. And this is exactly what happened.'"
     Tapper: "Though one actor's comment seems likely to only inflame matters."
     Ian McKellan on NBC's Today: "Well, I'd often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer at the front saying, 'this is fiction.'"

     The Real and Windows Media video, as well as MP3 audio, will be added to the posted version of this item. In the meantime, check the NewsBusters posting or the MRC's "Hear & See the Bias" page of videos: www.mrc.org

[Doe Eyes]

Besides, this sin was mentioned several times in the New Testament.

Old Testament sins that are repeated in the New Testament are still applicable.

[durasell]

Jefferson actually edited the bible to his liking, taking out all of the miracles, etc.

[durasell]

Here's a copy of it. Kind of a weird historical oddity, but still fascinating...

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

[Windsong]

The sodomites generally have a problem with the Holy Bible. Must be those pesky passages about a man lying with another man being an abomination.

I recall seeing a bumper sticked that read "Attn: Gays...sin on brothers, Hell aint half-full yet".

Anyway, Hanks has always been militantly pro-gay ever since "Philadelphia".

[StockAyatollah]

The Bible gets much better reviews than this turkey of a film!

[Windsong]

sticked=sticker

[Alouette]

those old Testament sins are no longer applicable.

Like the old Testament sins forbidding incest? Murder? Theft? Adultery? Child sacrifice? Sex with animals? Those old Testament sins were abolished by Jesus? By Mohammed maybe.

[Deadshot Drifter]

No big deal, all this movie means is that with no validation of Christ's resurrection, there is no possibility of us any of us being redeemed from sin. No big deal...only to an unbeliever and to an atheist.

..or to those of us who are intelligent enough to comprehend that +A Novel+ on the cover of a book means that it is fiction.

Honestly, I remember learning that back in elementary school, when the teacher rounded us all up and took us to the school library to learn about the Dewey Decimal system. We also learned what fiction and nonfiction meant.

[durasell]

9 " 'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you


No lobster for you!

[RedStateRocker]

It's a case of Opus Dei vs. Opie Deus :=_

[Alouette]

No lobster for you!

Ain't that a bummer!

[RedStateRocker]

At least McKellan had the stones to come right out and say what he thinks, rather than 'cafeteria Christians' or those who, to paraphrase C.S.Lewis, want a warm fuzzy deity to be thankful towards when the sun is shining and everything is beautiful but don;t really want to worry about any type of deity when they want to do something they'd rather no one knew about.....

[durasell]

Nobody is born with a taste for lobster (or shrimp cocktail) it's a choice. A lifestyle. Lobster eaters choose the lobster eating lifestyle of silly bibs and melted butter.

[durasell]

The guy is 9,000 years old. He's made a ton of money in popular movies, established his reputation in serious theater and was Knighted. He's pretty much free to say whatever he wants without too many worries.

[sasportas]

I understand your point, but apparently you don't understand mine.

This Da Vinci business is a full broadside against the very foundation of Christian salvation. By (from what I see on this thread about Hanks and the producer of the film) homosexuals and pro-homos who hate the Bible because it condemns their sin.

Is there ANYTHING sacred anymore? Apparently you are one of those who thinks there isn't.

As to it being fiction. Whether its producers and Hanks actually believe the tall tale, who knows. The point is, they are using it, fiction or no, to attack the validity of the Bible.

[mjolnir]

..or to those of us who are intelligent enough to comprehend that +A Novel+ on the cover of a book means that it is fiction. Honestly, I remember learning that back in elementary school, when the teacher rounded us all up and took us to the school library to learn about the Dewey Decimal system. We also learned what fiction and nonfiction meant.

Look, I'm sure you've read threads about this book before... Maybe you've even read it. If so, you know that it claims that all the historical facts about Christ, all the historical facts about Da Vinci, all the historical facts put forth in the novel are TRUE, period, no equivocation on Mr. Brown's part.

I'm sure your teachers taught you the difference between science fiction, historical fiction and so on. The belief that a book cannot serve or be intended to serve as an argument for a certain position simply because it is a work of fiction is completely unwarranted on at least two grounds.

First, the idea that a work of fiction cannot be intended to move people into holding a certain position makes no sense. there is nothing about the definition of the term "fiction" that would suggest that it is incapable of doing so.

Second, throughout history, works of fiction have purposefully and successfully been used to do exactly that. The dialogues of Plato, Galileo and Hume are fiction. Each contributed to creating the intellectual atmosphere in which we breath today. Ayn Rand's novels are fictional... But I'm sure you've noticed that, like Dan Brown's novels, they are also polemical. So is Michael Crichton's novel on environmentalist fanaticism, "The State of Fear". So was Harriett Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's cabin, which Abraham Lincoln with just a bit of exaggeration with starting the Civil War.

Fiction can be as powerful, if not more so, than any other medium. This has been recognized since virtually the beginning of written history-- Plato advocated censorship of poets in the Republic for exactly this reason.

I understand you may believe some are making too big a deal about this movie. Maybe they are, maybe not; it'll be blown away when it has to compete with X-Men 3 in any case. But it seems like this "it's just fiction" fallacy keeps popping up, and it really IS fallacious.

[mjolnir]

Question: Are there any other theories/research in "The Da Vinci Code" that are not already in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"?

Dan Brown pretty much openly admits that there were not. That's what was funny about the lawsuit of the guys who wrote it--- Dan Brown has been totally upfront in giving them credit and listing them as a source.

[Kenny Bunkport]

Now at 15%.

[Kenny Bunkport]

LOL. Good one.

[Kenny Bunkport]

This Da Vinci business is a full broadside against the very foundation of Christian salvation.

As I said to a friend today, the appeal of the book is to the rebellious/God-denying streak in every man. Take Jesus down a few pegs, and it makes humanity feel pretty good about itself.