Posted on 05/22/2006 11:29:05 PM PDT by L.A.Justice
Some observers wonder why there’s been so much controversy regarding the movie version of THE DA VINCI CODE, but having finally seen the film I’m astonished that there’s so little.
This very long (2 and a half hours) and very somber exercise amounts to a full-frontal assault on Christianity, explicitly suggesting that the world would be a better place of Christian faith collapsed, and blaming the church (the supposedly deluded faith in “one true god”) for racism, intolerance, sexism, brutality and fanaticism.
In ideological terms, it’s a far more radical film than “The Last Temptation of Christ,” and even more deserving of public objection and condemnation. The argument that it’s just “fictional entertainment” falls apart in face of the movie’s gratuitous and inflammatory preachiness: director and co-producer Ron Howard could have offered an eerie, conspiratorial thriller without repeating the book’s outspoken indictments of Christian orthodoxy and shameless promotion of paganism. At the conclusion of the movie in particular, the lead characters (played by Tom Hanks and French Star Audrey Tautou) speculate on the liberating, peace-making, altogether beneficial impact on humanity if they someday succeed in rebutting the lies of authoritarian, traditional Christianity.
Could anyone feel sincere surprise at the indignant reaction by those of us who believe that today’s Christian faith represents a blessing rather than a curse to this troubled planet? By an large, the film follows the twists and turns of the book though one of the most engaging elements of the novel falls entirely flat on screen.
For readers, Dan Brown provides all sorts of tantalizing, fascinating, arcane historical and theological details -- many of them utterly bogus, of course-- that nonetheless come alive on the page. In the movie, much of this trivia coalescences into large, gooey, indigestible lumps of dialogue and exposition that not even a great actor like Sir Ian McKellen can put across.
As a matter of fact, all the considerable acting talent in the film is wasted, with superbly capable performers like Tom Hanks, Alfred Molina, Ian McKellen, Jean Reno and especially poor Paul Bettany (asked to play a murderous, self-torturing, albino monk) assigned to characterizations that remain pathetically underdeveloped, one dimensional, and feeble. We know, for instance, that Hanks’ Harvard “Professor of Religious Symbology” is a world famous academic star, but unlike the book there’s no hint as to whether he’s got a wife, or girlfriend, or boyfriend, or lovable sheepdog waiting for him back home in Cambridge. Again in contrast to the book, there’s no love scene between the two main characters and the presumably inevitable attraction between them never materializes in any sense.
The plot begins with a murder, of course: with a Louvre curator shot by a Catholic fanatic but left with enough time as he bleeds to death to arrange his nude body in a provocative style, while writing coded messages partly in his own blood, partly with invisible ink. Hanks and “police cryptographer” Tautou begin investigating the death (the victim, it turns out, is her grandfather) but the tough French detective (Jean Reno) assigned to the crime tries to arrest them before they get away. Eventually, they make their way to the lavish estate of a crippled scholar (McKellen) who reveals the connection between the rampage of violence in the “biggest cover-up in human history”: a Catholic attempt to suppress the knowledge that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, that she bore a child whose descendants live on in Europe to the present day, and that the keepers of this sacred secret will someday restore the true male-female balance to Western religiosity. McKellen also insists that Jesus was merely human, and that early Christians began persecuting pagans in ancient Rome, ruining the more enlightened, more sensitive world of the Empire.
The ominous visual style and generally energetic pacing keep the movie purring along, with less tedium than you’d expect in an epic of such conspicuous length. The plot twists and sudden reverses, however seem silly, arbitrary, and entirely contrived --- never growing organically out of the story-line or the thinly sketched characters.
As a piece of cinema, THE DA VINCI CODE is just barely competent enough to influence some gullible audience members to question the ancient story of the Gospels. If the movie represents the beginning of that questioning process, it could spark a religious awakening in some viewers, but director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman (who did such wonderful work in last year’s superb “Cinderella Man”) offer smug, supercilious conclusions, not vital or vigorous challenges. RATED PG-13, for disturbing violence and gore, some (male) nudity, and fleeting sex references. TWO STARS.
Eveningstar; hitmanLV; grame; swake; bitt; shoot this thing; right in east lansing; itsamelman; softballmom; libertarianizethegop; conservative4life; abby4116; justiceseeker93; rushcrush; usafearsnobody; headsonpikes; tiggs; rahbert; bradyls; latina4dubya; missmarmelstein; kevindavis; sinkspur; goppachyderm; csm; Owl_Eagle; varmintxer; gopwinsin04
Michael Medved ping
Sweet nightmares.
And oh boy am I impressed. I guess you are ignorant of the fact that you can find just about any garbage you want on the Internet, duly indexed and catalogued by Google.
Opie was such a cute little boy too. So respectful of his pa. Who would have thought?
Certainly hasn't had any impact in our house. But it has qualified our long-time belief that hollywood asks "what if" Christ was versus "what if" Mohammed was, because they lack the, shall we say, courage, to do so.
Smearing Christ is an easy, not to mention tired formula. But if they wanna impress some of us between the coasts, they should try doing a biographical piece about that paedophile prophet.
Yeah right. Like that's ever gonna happen.
And oh boy am I impressed. I guess you are ignorant of the fact that you can find just about any garbage you want on the Internet, duly indexed and catalogued by Google.
Now, now, keep an open mind. I checked it out also, and have bookmarked the page to read tomorrow, when not pooped. This guy may have something here, or not. Won't know till I read up. You should too, just in case what he has said has some validity, rather than condemn outright based on lack of knowledge on your part.
I guess you always read up on everything even if it is somebody saying that gullibility is not in the dictionary.
Nobody is going to dispute that idolatry was rife, a worsening and spiraling problem among the Hebrews up to the time of the exile. You don't have to go looking at newage sewage, just read 1 Kings and 2 Kings. But to claim this was the official face of Judaism is the purest hogwash. No serious bible scholar subscribes to that.
The book is an amusing work of FICTION!
Picture this: DaVinci painted the Last Supper roughly 1500 years after Jesus was crucified. Exactly how does a person who was not an eye witness to the Last Supper gain any credence whatsoever?
I enjoyed reading it, but to take the book (and/or the painting) as a scholarly piece of work borders on the absurd/insane.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move on.
"But, no, accrording to Dan Brown, et al, Jesus of Nazareth was just a man, no more divine than John Doe... "
If this is what some took from the story then the some of the criticism is misguided. The suggestion was that Christ, being part man, had some of man’s ‘flaws’ – controversial, sure, but not the same as suggesting he was “no more divine than John Doe”.
But, yeah, you’re right about it being silly there was only one heir, although perhaps the implication was that Opus Dei was eliminating them.
Two points.
First, the old Testament clearly addresses the 'other gods' problems of Israel. You will that some of the kings even sacrificed their children to those gods. Solomon built altars to these gods to please his foreign wives. The issue is that the prophets preached against and Israel's failure to repent led to their undoing.
Regarding Da Vinci's "Last Supper", he identified the person in question as John the beloved in his sketches of the work. Slam dunk.
As I mentioned on this thread, it's almost too easy to pile a few more pejoratives on this stinker.
Regarding Da Vinci's "Last Supper", he identified the person in question as John the beloved in his sketches of the work. Slam dunk.
Well, of course! What would be the point in carefully encoding secret information if you go and give the code away? /sarcasm
I missed most of his show. What was he going on about?
Damn, the 'Flop' took in $77 Mil last weekend, I wonder how much more it really was when you figure in the offended Christians that were going to intentionally buy tickets to other movies and then sneak into DVC for 'research purposes'.
That's right. Did hear part of the second half of first hour and the very beginning of the third hour. I can't remember if I heard hour two or not. You are right, the parts I heard weren't the most riveting.
Thank you.
Let's look at the two - Jesus and Mohammed.
While we have sane discussions about what the film does or doesn't mean to Christianity, compare that to the brouhaha over cartoon Mohammeds. The very notion that any religion can dictate terms to the rest of the world is an affront!
Mohammed was a butcher, a goon, a child molestor. It's not surprising his zealots are little more than misguided, juvenile thugs.
When the Da Vinci Code book first came out, a friend was telling me about it. When he got to the part where the bloodline of Christ was supposedly in France, I told him to stop, right then.
Any story that goes from Jesus to some smelly, French aristocrat is a steaming pile of ... what is that stuff?
Sorry, but I cannot suspend disbelief that much.
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.