Posted on 05/27/2006 4:09:11 AM PDT by billorites
THE CRITICS HATED “The Da Vinci Code,” and many churches boycotted it — but audiences flocked to see it.
Maybe that tells us that the Lord works in mysterious ways. For sure it tells us a lot about who we are, and where we came from.
As of Monday, the Web site rottentomatoes.com had tabulated 160 reviews of “Code”; 78 percent of the critics rated the film “rotten.” And yet the film took in a reported $224 million worldwide over the weekend, the second-biggest weekend of all time.
So what gives?
To put it bluntly, for all its flaws, “Code” has one saving grace. It’s about something. It’s not car chases in Los Angeles, or guys chasing after girls in Manhattan. It’s about Christianity, which has dominated the last 2,000 years of western civilization. There’s a lesson there: If you want a mighty story, start with a mighty subject.
Since its first publication as a novel three years ago, “Code” has tapped into the wellsprings of our collective cultural memory, in which words such as “crusade,” “knight in shining armor” — and yes, “holy grail” — are sprinkled across common conversation. Surveys show that most people can’t answer basic questions about U.S. history and civic life, but just about everyone has an active opinion about religion.
And while those opinions run the gamut, from atheism to Zoroastrianism, most people seem to agree that sacred tradition offers a kind of comfort; there’s a reason people so often turn to faith in times of crisis. Such tradition and faith are rocks for people, far more secure than the shifting sands of popular culture.
It’s no accident that many of the biggest films of our time have drawn from this fund of common culture, which is largely a Christian culture. Most obviously, there’s “The Passion of the Christ.” But in addition, “Harry Potter,” “The Lord of the Rings” and “Chronicles of Narnia” were all huge hits — and now “Code.” But wait a second, one might say, all those films were controversial. And “Potter,” in particular, played games with traditional faith, relying heavily on the occult. And, of course, “Code” offers a subversive take on Christianity, attacking as it does a central premise of that faith — that Jesus was celibate, as well as divine.
So how can one say that “Code” benefits from the reservoir of good will toward the Christian tradition if it’s an attack on the Christian faith? The answer is that even attacks are, in a strange way, compliments; you have to regard something first, before you can disregard it. Christian lore, indeed all religious lore, includes many tales of evil attacking good, and evil triumphing, at least for awhile. That’s how instruction is provided: We hear the tale, or read the book — or see the movie — and we ask ourselves, “What do I believe? What would I do?” That’s the essence of moral instruction.
So could “Code” be part of some plan?
Well, let’s put it this way: More than 40 books have been published in response to “Code,” most of them denouncing its “Mrs. Jesus” premise. In addition, there have been innumerable sermons, conferences and Web sites; it’s hard to remember a time when Christianity has enjoyed more discussion.
One cliche of our age is that Americans have “narrowcasted” themselves into obliviousness, even ignorance, about larger events. But for Christians of all kinds, the Code-troversy is a “teachable moment”; the book and the movie have grabbed everyone’s attention.
Lots of people will get the idea, from “Code,” of writing a best-seller about religion and religious history. But if they are serious about doing so, first they will have to learn about Important Things — history, theology.
They might even have to travel to Europe — even, gasp! France. And if they do, they will most likely understand and revere Western civilization all the more. That’s part of a good plan, too.
James P. Pinkerton is a columnist for Newsday.
You could make the effort to tell us why you posted this article.
It reaffirms our faith for those of us who believe in God.
We are willing to defend it against all arguments, comical or not.
Well, I won't speak for the poster, but the article was interesting to me.
Do people now have to justify why they posted an article?
That's more than the author of the novel did.
Jim Pinkerton is usually pretty good, especially when he's refuting Neal Gabler's idiocy on Fox Newswatch.
But this article is too cute by half. I don't see how he has any point here. Someone who is stimulated by the Da Vinci Code will generally be someone who has a jones against authority, wants to think he's in the know over and above everyone else--- you know , the kind of person who thinks you're naive for not thinking Haliburton is controlling the Bush Administration. Going to Paris, etc. isn't going to educate someone on why art historians are so annoyed with it. If they want to count 666 panes of glass in the Louvre pyrimad instead of the 673 that are actually there, they will. This article reminds me of the argument that moonbat teachers in college are a benefit to conservatism because their rants stimulate people to discover the truth for themselves--- which, if true, would have resulted in conservatism being the main position for students in college. But that argument is clearly wrong since conservatism isn't even a mainstream position among students in college and Pinkerton's argument is wrong as well.
Now, Indiana Jones and the Holy Grail, that was a good movie featuring the grail. Too bad all Harrison Ford does is righteously scream in his movies or look like he needs to take a crap.
"You could make the effort to tell us why you posted this article.
Well, I won't speak for the poster, but the article was interesting to me"
I messed up.
I was trying to say, I understand why the poster should should state, what he finds interesting about what he posts, which would imply a starting point on a response from us.
Jim, we're all waiting for that Ron Howard/Tom Hanks block-buster that exposes Islam as being an evil cult that worships a moon-god and was founded by a deranged pedophile. Until then, I don't buy your thesis that blaspheming our Lord Jesus Christ is a good thing. Pathetic.
That's a fair question, I suppose.
What's current or topical in popular culture is often a reflection of powerful and enduring human themes.
We've seen religion dealt with very differently in popular culture over the years as illustrated by films such as this one contrasted with, say, Passion of the Christ.
I'm interested in what thoughtful people like Pinkerton and folks on this forum have to add to the discussion.
In that sense, I posted the article to be deliberately provocative, but I hope, in a constructive way.
"Blessed are you when persecuted for My name sake"
There is something like that in the Screwtape Letters ...
"The trouble about argument is that it moves the whole struggle on to the Enemy's own ground. He can argue too; whereas in really practical propaganda of the kind I am suggesting He has been shown for centuries to be greatly the inferior of Our Father Below. By the very act of arguing, you awake the patient's reason; and once it is awake, who can foresee the result? Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as to end in our favour, you will find that you have been strengthening in your patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues and withdrawing his attention from the stream of immediate sense experiences. Your business is to fix his attention on the stream. Teach him to call it 'real life' and don't let him ask what he means by 'real'." ...
"I once had a patient, a sound atheist, who used to read in the British Museum. One day, as he sat reading, I saw a train of thought in his mind beginning to go the wrong way. The Enemy, of course, was at his elbow in a moment. Before I knew where I was I saw my twenty years' work beginning to totter. If I had lost my head and begun to attempt a defence by argument I should have been undone. But I was not such a fool. I struck instantly at the part of the man which I had best under my control and suggested that it was just about time he had some lunch. The Enemy presumably made the counter-suggestion (you know how one can never quite overhear what He says to them?) that this was more important than lunch. At least I think that must have been His line for when I said 'Quite. In fact much too important to tackle at the end of a morning,' the patient brightened up considerably; and by the time I had added 'Much better come back after lunch and go into it with a fresh mind,' he was already half way to the door. Once he was in the street the battle was won. I showed him a newsboy shouting the midday paper, and a No. 73 bus going past, and before he reached the bottom of the steps I had got into him an unalterable conviction that, whatever odd ideas might come into a man's head when he was shut up alone with his books, a healthy dose of 'real life' (by which he meant the bus and the newsboy) was enough to show him that all 'that sort of thing' just couldn't be true ..."
"Do remember you are there to fuddle him. From the way some of you young fiends talk, anyone would suppose it was our job to teach!"
Thank you.
You know I almost picked up that book a few months ago?
I will have to get it.
Love your Freep name, btw...
As an ardent Packer fan, I lost a good buddy of mine, who was a die hard Bronco fan, a few years back.
He was living in PA,and we were back and forth on the phone when the Packers and the Broncos met in the 97 Super Bowl.
You could make the effort to tell us (not that we care) why you're platering this statement on every thread you see this morning.
Perhaps, but many discussed it and had private showings. I notice that side hasn't made the msm. I've seen more than one Sunday tv church service where it's been painted in a more positive light because of it's value in opening discussions. The day we saw the movie, a Baptist church had reserved a showing. I find it laughable, sad but laughable, that so many can not get their minds around the fact the work is fiction.
It didn't sound critical, but more like an invitation to participate in a discussion group.
I thought it was a darn good read. I didn't particularly care for the ending, and thought some of the clues were a bit easy to solve along the way.
It's fiction though. I don't see what the fuss is about, unless you are an Opus Dei follower. They didn't come out looking so good.
Would it really be so bad if Jesus DID father a child? Personally I'd be happy to hear His bloodline survived. I think it's kind of a hopeful thought. Pondering such an event sounds more like a wishful fantasy of some Christian or Christian group rather than a group seeking to tear down Christianity or speak blasphemy.
I generally regard Pinkerton as a ditz, but his argument has some small merit. The downside, of course, is the fact that many who will see it have such an abysmal education that they have no frame of reference, and little to no intellectual curiosity.
Then again, I've read that the film is both boring and torturously long, so the net result may be a flash in the pan media hype that's soon forgotten.
He's slighting animism and Arianism.
Here's a word of mouth - it was a pretty good movie. The quality one would expect from Hanks and Howard. No grumbles at all in the theater and we all managed to live through it without a single buzz of a locust. All of Brown's books are a good read and I can't wait for others to be made into movies.
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.